Doom 4: End Of The Game Industry? [Archive]

Charmed

30-04-2005, 08:03 AM

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp

Well I can certainly agree with this article. I have not bought as many games for a few years now, compared to what I used to buy about 5+ years ago. In fact, quite a few years ago, I bought more games in half a year, than I have now, in the last 3-4 years about.

It may not be the same for everyone else, but for me, someone who used to play games almost every free minute of his life, I can hardly find something that keeps me interested enough any longer and with increased prices, its hardly worth wasting your money for something you are just going to stash away after a day or two of playing.

Modern gaming just doesn't do much for me anymore, I'm sad to say. They can add better physics, better graphics, better sound - but it's still the same thing, just a lot prettier.

I mean what is the point now anyway, I need to buy a new machine every two years in order to play a game at a reasonable framerate? I need to buy a new machine EVERY 2 YEARS in order just to play a rehashed game - just with a touch more makeup on? Add on the expense of a game that you are most probably going to get bored with - there are exceptions, but there are very few of them. I used to, I am ashamed to admit, argue that the PC was the ultimate gaming platform. Nowdays I am arguing the exact opposite.

Consoles seem to be the only logical way to support gaming as a hobby. Unless you are Bill Gates son (or something along those lines), upgrading/buying a new machine every few months/2 years is just not a resonable option. Console games while being more expensive (on average - why are they more expensive that PC games I like to ask myself ... they should be cheaper seeing as everything is constant - the hardware, the system etc.) at least give you a level experience. At least buying a console game, you know you are getting the same experience as everyone else. Unlike a PC game where you hear how great it is, only to find out you have to use your countries military computers to be able to run the things ...

What do you guys think?

I personally couldn't care less for Doom 4,5,6 ... Half-Life 3,4,5 ... Halo 3,4,5... Red Alert 3,4,5 ... Tomb Raider 7,8,9 ... Mario 101,102,103 .... you guys get the point :P

I don' t know what it is with this industry and sequels and rehashed ideas. Enough with the sequels, enough with the BFG's, enough with the hype.

It's all because of sequels and hardware driven games - that the actually good games, ADVENTURES (not your adventure/rpg/action/puzzle type games) are forced out of the industry. Ironic isn't it, that ADVENTURES, once the FPS of the game industry, are so rare nowdays. Maybe its the reviewers that keep telling us how its not as much fun as Counter-Strike or whatever other FPS seems to be popular at the moment, that is leading to the extinction of commercial adventures. Maybe it is because they keep telling us the graphics arn't as good as Half-Life X or Doom X.

The industry really is a funny thing nowdays.

I seem to be playing Highway Pursuit http://www.adamdawes.com/windows/win_hpursuit.html

a lot more than your super-out-of-this-world-graphics games currently available.

Long live the oldies!

Zarkumo

30-04-2005, 08:42 AM

If you want to see exactly how inane this is, go out and rent the brain-dead Paul Verhoeven film, Starship Troopers. The movie stank so bad that nothing came of it after its release. It's essentially a video game turned into a movie—all the elements are there, including an idiotic "boss" that is just some huge flabby bug—and it shows you just how lame these games actually are.

This judgement on Starship Troopers immediately disqualified this guy's article in my opinion. The only thing brain-dead I can see here is a whining, immature, passive consumer who is not ready to apply some intellect to what he sees or plays.

I can understand his frustration with the gaming industry, though, as can probably quite a few people here on Abandonia, too. But I was wondering why he gets into an argument with his kids about it. What do they care if their father already played a similar game like ten years ago? If the first FPS they played is Far Cry, they are gonna love it, no matter if DOOM already had all the basic elements (well, maybe not in this particular comparison, but you get my point). And of course the industry lives off these kids and not off their fathers.

I think a critique of the gaming industry has to be a bit more differntiated. I mean, WTF, you can trace every thought back to Plato, so what, are we gonna kill ourselves now? The fact that all basic ideas have already been there doesn't mean we can't work with them, does it? A game does not have to be entirely new in all of its basic elements to be good. To be good, a game must be fun to play. Period. It's the same with music, with literature, with art. Everything has already been there. But if you make new combinations out of old elements, it's still creative and the result can be great.

I think you can criticise the gaming industry for going for better graphics only, mostly, but you can hardly criticise them for using the basic genres.

MdaG

30-04-2005, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Charmed@Apr 30 2005, 08:03 AM
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
It may not be the same for everyone else, but for me, someone who used to play games almost every free minute of his life, I can hardly find something that keeps me interested enough any longer and with increased prices, its hardly worth wasting your money for something you are just going to stash away after a day or two of playing.
I agree, but I think it's more a case of "been there, done that". In other words, maybe you've outgrown games as a full time hobby?

Charmed

30-04-2005, 10:21 AM

I agree, but I think it's more a case of "been there, done that". In other words, maybe you've outgrown games as a full time hobby?

You may be right. I do still play the odd game here and there though, but yes I think it is once you have seen and played the original type of genre, playing sequels with pretty graphics just doesn't do it for you anymore. I am sure there are tons of teenagers and such that absolutely love the current games - but we can't really blame them, seeing that this is all new to them. Of course many will just give you a cold shoulder if you try tell them about older games and such.

The last fairly new game that I played and really enjoyed was The Legend of Zelda - The Wind Waker. I thought that game was so cute :) good for kiddies and adults.

This judgement on Starship Troopers immediately disqualified this guy's article in my opinion. The only thing brain-dead I can see here is a whining, immature, passive consumer who is not ready to apply some intellect to what he sees or plays.

Zarkumo, seriously :bleh: , are you going to try tell me that Starship Troopers was a great movie? Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed that movie, but the word cheesy comes to mind... It was one of those movies you had to see, but once you have seen it, you never want it mentioned around you again.

Zarkumo to dismiss his opinion just because he didn't agree with a movie you liked is a little silly.

You may disagree with him, but you cannot deny anything he has said with regards to the industry. You just need to look at stats and trends to see for yourself.

On average below:

1 - Which games get the highest reviews .... FPS = FACT
2 - Which sequels get the highest reviews ... FPS = FACT
3 - Which games drive the industry ... FPS = FACT
4 - Which games make you have to upgrade or buy a new machine ... FPS = FACT

Now I am being biased towards FPS here (no secret they are on average not near the top of my list of favourite genres), but facts are facts.

Something similar can be said with RTS games. Warcraft 1,2,3 .... Age of Empires 1,2,3... and so on. He is right with what he said, with regards to only a few genres.

He wasn't arguing that there is nothing good left to play, merely that there is only so much people can take with regards to the same stuff being churned out.

Look at all the sequels ... same old most of the time just prettier
Look at the the gameplay ... same old thing

I don't think he was saying there needs to be a completely new genre - merely that it needs to be refreshed.

Look at RTS games - they were all pretty much the same thing (I am generalizing now, which is a wrong thing to do, but on average) until they decided to bring hero type characters in games. Now its the norm to have hero type characters. After a while this will get stale and it won't seem like a big deal. The same thing applies for all genres.

Granted there is only so much you can do to bring originality in a game - but you can at least stop with the trashy torrent of sequels. How many more Dooms/Quakes/The Sims expansion packs do you need.

One very simply solution is to stop with all the sequels. That way you would be bring originality back into the industry, not wholescale, but a start.

Besides its a fact that many developers have said this before, that they would love to try new ideas, but it's too much of a risk. Simple as that. They themselves admitted they wanted to do something else, but making a sequel is the safest thing in their eyes.

Gaming is a business now - not much of an art any more - pretty much everything in the world is now a business.

If it means food on your plate and a roof over your head, we can't really blame them for taking the easy way out can we. We would most probably do the same thing anyway.

Charmed

30-04-2005, 11:17 AM

Just to clarify my point - I am busy reading on Gamespot.

Another Tomb Raider is in the works, another Hitman and another Commandos Game.
Commandos won't be the in the same style of the originals, so we will have to wait and see what happens.

Can you really make the argument for modern games being original? It's ridiculous. Just look how much of the same thing is being done all these years later ...

When did the first Tomb Raider come out 1997?

Oh and read this - this just shows exactly what the industry is all about at this stage - BUSINESS.

Kinda like EA games - BUY EVERYTHING.

http://www.ferrago.com/story/5606

"It's a great shame that yet another developer has to go to the wall because of the outdated business model that the games industry still clings to. The astronomical costs of development for the next-gen consoles coupled with developers having to fight for investment and take risk on content creation in a manner that other media industries would sneer at, the days of smaller, innovative developers could well be drawing to a most unfortunate close."

That says it all.

There are the facts - the gaming industry is an old hag. Stale and rotten.

Another good read
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/596/596734p1.html

So its not just us bitching and maoning - the developers are doing it as well.
So I guess we should point fat fingers at the publishers.

Quintopotere

30-04-2005, 11:43 AM

I agree totally that Starship troopers is "the brain-dead Paul Verhoeven film"!

But talking about the game industry i think that the problem is only the marketing, like my guru, Ron Gilbert :angel: , said here (http://grumpygamer.com/1230269)

Nowadays the game industry is in the hands of the marketing managers, who don't mind about quality or innovation of the games: the important thing is that they have to sell, sell and sell!

efthimios

30-04-2005, 11:59 AM

I do not think even the first Tomb Raider was original. There are very very very very very few original games.
TR was just another version of Rick Dangerous or even further back Dr. Livingstone (forget the spelling right now), or even Pitfall.

Being original does not mean the game is good. Being more of the same does not mean the game is not good.

Regarding the rapid advancement of PCs, what is so strange or new about it? Even in the age of the Home Computers (Amstrad, Spectrum, CMD, Atari, Amiga...) there were new models every couple of years, and there were games that were not playable AT ALL or with reduced speed, details, content! etc. It is a strength of the PCs the constant upgrade of hardware. Sure, you and me may not be able to afford it, but that doesn't mean it is bad. I bought my current PC/laptop in the summer of 2002 and is obsolete now. Most of the new 3D games are not possible to run on my laptop since many of them require either faster CPU or better graphics card that supports say Pixel Shaders etc. There is no way for me to buy a new one for at least another year, may be more. But, that doesn't mean that that is a bad thing.
Just vote with your money. Buy games that are not top of the edge in terms of graphics etc, let the companies know and support those that make less games (in those terms).

The Niles

30-04-2005, 12:44 PM

I disagree with the article. I too was disappointed by many of the scenes hottest releases over the past year or two (Doom3 actually being a marked exception) but to say everything has already been done before and therefore it will inevitably all come crashing down sooner rather then later is to misunderstand the nature of the development in the computer industry.
A computer twenty years ago is in essence exactly the same as a computer today. A machine capable of making rapid calculations. This is universally true and will remain so. The difference comes in the amount of calculations these two computers can make in a given timeframe. Computers have not become different, they have become better. This is also true of the applications those computers run. The first computers could process text just like today’s computers can but today the programs you use for it are infinitely better then, even, the older versions of the same program.
What I will say next will be controversial but I mean it. The same thing holds true for games as well. Having played Civilization (1) extensively again recently (on my pocket PC) I realized two things. Civilization was a great game for its time and also, given the choice I would rather play Civilization 3. Why? Well, Civilization has expanded greatly over its different incarnations. In Civ3 I have more options better features and nicer graphics (let’s face it Civ1 graphics where abominable). This is not because during Civ1 development there was a conscious decision to leave out features for no good reason. No, it was that it was not possible to add things because of hardware restriction and development cost considerations (and a learning process that had only just begun). Neither Civ3 nor Civ1 are flawless games but there can be no argument that Civ3 is the better game (which is something different from having a personal favourite).
Games over the years have become better and have evolved into separate genres but the former more then the latter (which doesn’t mean ALL new games are better then ALL old ones. There are plenty of bad games then and now). People complaining that there is nothing new or even good coming out today forget two things. One, there are millions upon millions of people (many more then ever before) who enjoy and love the games that are coming out TODAY. Secondly, if you don't like the newest games this is not so much a problem of the market not suited to the demand but you no longer being interesting for the market. In the not to distant past the only people who had computers where those who could afford one. This meant that computer game where written for those people likely to own a computer. Reasonable well of people of all ages are likely to be the better educated, more intelligent people. Computer games where written with their tastes in mind. Right now computers (either in PC or console form) are no longer out of reach for anyone and the market has changed accordingly. No longer are the tastes and interests of the well educated the guide stone for the gaming industry. The largest group of gamers today are the lower middle classes. This group demands different things from games. Adventures are gone for a reason. They are no longer interesting for the gaming public at large. Today things need to be fast paced and easily accessible.
Other corners of the market are still being served but not by the large companies. Small publishers are feeding this niche market with a few great games every year. You just need to keep in touch with that part of the gaming industry and not be blinded by the glare of the big publishing houses such as EA and Activision.
Lastly, on the coming crises in the gaming industry. This is true but not for the reasons stated in the article. Development costs are ever rising. An average game now costs $15-$20 million to make, the large names cost even more (Doom3 was in development for 5 years). The pressure for these projects to be successful is enormous and the price of failure for a small company is bankruptcy. There is also overproduction in the largest market (FPS #13548282 please step forward) I foresee a purge of smaller companies (those that make the niche games will not be affected by this as much) in the near future and maybe one big name will disappear as well (like Interplay not that long ago). Gaming is now the largest entertainment industry on the planet but the industry is not yet fully formed. A crisis can help it become that.

KingTizz

30-04-2005, 01:18 PM

In my eyes the main problem with the games industry is the developers and publishers, so many are being bought out by the big companies (EA in particular) and big companies don't like risks.

In the old days small development studios would try new things, new types of games and if they made a duff one or two, they would carry on. Now it seems most the old development studios have been bought up and the teams disbanded and spread out through many different projects. If some small studio does make a decent game, they are bought up and 20 sequals that do exactly the same thing as the origional, just prettier, are planned and the origional team loose the control they had.

Publishers don't want to take the risk of releasing something totally new anymore, Black and White is an exception, it did stuff thats totally unique, it might not have been as good as promised but it was certainly something new.

What was the last game that genuinly changed a genre or gaming as a whole?

Then games that do actually do add new stuff really well (like deus ex) are made more 'accessible' to other markets by taking away that which made it different.

BOOOOO HISSSSSS at Publishers, especially EA who ruined one the best games of all time.

P.S. Starship troopers was a good film, it did exactly what it said on the tin. Lots of Aliens, lots of humans, lots of fighting, lots of gruesome deaths. Not every film has to be an oscar winning epic about emotional stuff or whatever.

The Niles

30-04-2005, 01:52 PM

Back and White was nothing more then the continuation of Populas by newer means.

Doubler

30-04-2005, 01:55 PM

Back and White was nothing more then the continuation of Populas by newer means.

Hmm, I do believe Populous placed it's accents a bit differently...
At any rate Black & White was a lot more pacifistic.

DeathDude

30-04-2005, 04:41 PM

The industry has slowly been evolving and essentially as we can see, if a game sells why not churn out a sequel to reap the profits, just look at the revival at the grand theft auto series and how well it's been doing. Pretty much everything nowadays in regards to the industry is profit based, companies don't take chances like they did in the 90's, creativity has essentially been squashed to the ground, with the idea of relying on the old ideas, with some tweaks here and there.

With the next generation of consoles I forsee, rising costs both in the development process, selling of the product, and everything else, with the reliance on improved graphics which seems to be a key issue with the console developers,

troop18546

30-04-2005, 04:52 PM

I have to agree that it's a total bust on PC's that you have to buy them every 2-3 years, the games - russian, english...etc. You may never know what language is the game you've bought until you install it... It's frigin' crazy... :not_ok: On the other hand I dislike consoles so I'm stuck on PC's, so whateva...

BeefontheBone

30-04-2005, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Doubler@Apr 30 2005, 01:55 PM
Back and White was nothing more then the continuation of Populas by newer means.

Hmm, I do believe Populous placed it's accents a bit differently...
At any rate Black & White was a lot more pacifistic.
B&W 2 won't be though, which should mean it gets boring less quickly, which is nice.

The Picard, when you said "gaming is the largest entertainment industry" did you mean "fastest growing"? Surely TV and film (and publishing, I imagine) are much bigger than gaming even now? I'd put myself in your "well-educated intelligent people" category and I enjoy a bit of fast-paced FPS or some hacking and slashing every once in a while, and I thought HL2 was excellent, although perhaps not as innovative as the first one was (remember how dull FPSs were before HL?) - though I certainly tend to get more longevity out of strategy and adventure type games like Civilization (about which you're absolutely correct), Total Annihilation or Monkey Island.

I think it's a bit too easy to bash the sequel trend - people make money that way, it's the market. If people actually went out and bought the innovative and exciting games like MDK, Battlezone, Sacrifice, Darwinia, Republic: The Revolution (although to be fair that one wasn't as good as it should've been) and so on then more of them would be made - as pointed out before, the cost of making a game is so huge that you can't afford to do it unless the publisher think they're going to make money on it.

The Niles

30-04-2005, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Doubler@Apr 30 2005, 01:55 PM
Back and White was nothing more then the continuation of Populas by newer means.

Hmm, I do believe Populous placed it's accents a bit differently...
At any rate Black & White was a lot more pacifistic.
Populous was a different game of course but the overall theme was the same and that is the point. Black & White was not a wholely origional game idea. But it was significantly better then populous which is my whole argument.

Last year the gaming industry grossed more money then any other entertainment industry so yes, it is trully the biggest and not just the fastest growing.

Generalizations are never a complete fit (as said I like Doom3 and I too considder myself to be well educated).

Zarkumo

30-04-2005, 06:53 PM

My point about the Starship Troopers issue was that movies as well as compter games cannot be brain-dead. They don't have brains. Only the people who make them and, and this is my point, the people who watch/play them.

It's totally legitimate not to like Starship Troopers, as is liking it. However, I think missing the whole parody element of ST and calling it just a braindead action flick with stupid characters shows a certain passiveness (=braindeadness) on the side of the consumer. (You cannot like the parody, or hate the movie in spite of it, but you can hardly deny that it's there.)

And this passiveness (braindeadness) is exactly what is the basis of the success of nice-graphic FPS's with no plot versus intelligent games with a good story. A lot of people are only looking on the fast, easily accessible action elements and don't appreciate more subtle elements.

People who criticise Starship Troopers because the brain bug is "an idiotic 'boss' that is just some huge flabby bug" are exactly those people who criticise an FPS because the boss doesn't look cool/good enough. And that's why the author of the article quoted above disqualifies himself in my opinion: he is exactly one of the braindead people he himself criticises.

It's like criticising Monkey Island because you fight with puns instead of swords. Or like criticising Serious Sam because the levels are flooded with monsters. It's completely missing the humour of it. D'uh.

a1s

30-04-2005, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by BeefontheBone@Apr 30 2005, 05:13 PM
I'd put myself in your "well-educated intelligent people"
we all would put oursevles there :D , and not just beacuse it pleases us, but because it's true, those of us who really are here for the games they palyed back in the day, belong to the group by defention (with posible exceptions, which prove the rule), those who are here for the ABW (sad to say I'm one of them) have to be intlegent enough to fool themselves into believing the games are great (which some of them are, granted you can overcome their lack of flashy graphics).
Now If one stupid kid with a GPA below 3, and no alowance (who frequents this site) will answer me (and give me some sort of proof he is one), I'll... ah, what the heck, I'll mail him all my unscratched game disks at my own expense (even if he lives in the USA).
Now,about starship troopers: The movie was your average action, it just hapens to be a known crapy movie. I don't think any of you will tell me why it was worse than "the predator", which again is a known good movie. I believe this originated from the people who read the book, and were heavily dessapointed, but guess what? it's not based of the book. yup, it's based of secondary secondary product- the graphic novel series, which are sort of the misssing link- with the philosophy set in the first issues, it concerns much more the history of this war (and the of course the battles). the movie goes one step further and remove certain key elemnts- like competely abolishing all the philosophy and removing the ultra-super-powered armour. I read the book after the movie, and was able to wach it unbiased, it's an ok movie, it has your hero story, and your love story, and those news-flashes were a nice touch in my opinion.

racer

30-04-2005, 10:30 PM

1- The only word in gaming bussines is sell, sell and sell, no matter the quality.
2- In 1985-1990 codies were just normal people, working in dad´s garage. They had the same thinking about games as kids who would buy them. Lots of addiction, and quality.
3- In 2005 codies are full time workers, each game is just one more project to achieve.
4- Games are more oriented to consoles. I agree.
5- I don´t think games industry is crashing down, just lacking new ideas.
6- Our pockets are crasing down with higher prices with new software realize.
7- Lack of quality is not understable: with each new game a BIG team is behind. Producers, drawers, coders, designers, beta-testers.... Just as a example the first Ultima was written in BASIC by just ONE people.
8- The world is not the same as in 1990. And this applies to gaming industry too.

joelster

01-05-2005, 02:47 AM

wow, this is an interesting topic, someone should write a book about this, then the many people will get the idea of about how games are goin down nowadays. I am a fan of those good oldies of the 80's and early 90's which has brought me to ask, why not have the major companies just make a collection of those games in one, like sonic mega collection or zelda collector's edition, think about how many happy people there would be in the world then :ok: .

DeathDude

01-05-2005, 03:45 AM

Yeah that would be the most logical solution, but then how would those companies make the potential profits by slowly by surely releasing the games over time to the people and thus gain more profits that way rather than the easy way (Nintendo comes to mind)

Charmed

01-05-2005, 07:37 AM

The Picard, I agree with you for the most part. I would much rather play a newer incarnation of a game than an older one, without a doubt. Who honestly wouldn't? If it's a good game and you getting that same great gameplay with lucious graphics, crisper sound and overall better quality, what is not to like.

But, my point (If I didn't put it across to well, that is my fault, I tend to wander of topic during my rants from time to time :)) is that there has to be some kind of limit with regards to the same thing and the amount of sequels. The guy in the intial article, I surmise was trying to say the same thing. He wasn't saying there is nothing good, because there is, but merely what I am stating.

I am not sure if you read the article on the bottom of my 3rd post at Gamespy, regarding what the developers themselves are saying. They are basically saying what I said initially. I recall even Carmack himself saying he would love to try new things, but they are know for their FPS games and they will continue with that formula.

I will tell you now I am as excited as the next guy with regards to Age of Empires III. It looks amazing and sounds great. If they announced StarCraft 2 I would be the one hopping around like a crazed rabbit - but that shouldn't stop them from giving the title a new name and changing a lot of gameplay.

It is obvious they are riding the success of their earlier creations and who can blame them. Sure they will throw in an improvement here and there. I have no problem with a sequel - NONE whatsoever. It's when its the 3rd, 4th etc. sequel that things start to become ridiculous. Add on your imminent expansion pack and its all going crazy - but that is the market today. Expansions and sequels - all riding on the success to bring in more cash.

You are right with regards to the increasing of production costs and the large amount of people now required for a project. It is getting larger and larger every year and developers just don't like it. They obviously did not enter the industry to work like slaves in a sweatshop. I'm sure a lot of developers entered the industry, because they saw game making as an art, but many now see it as a job.

Let's name my "favourite" publisher. EA. I cannot count the number of FIFA's etc they have made. It is now a yearly thing. Honestly, is there anyone out there that would buy a 2004 version and the next year by the 2005 version and repeat that the following years. They could of course skip and year and actually make it worth people's time to get the new thing.

With regards to developers making the games they are, because the consumers are loving them and wanting more, I must disagree somewhat.

The only reason people think they love those games, is because that is all there really is (I am generalizing here, which is wrong thing to do, there is the odd exception) Publishers won't fund developers unless its a sure thing (At least a sure thing in the publishers mind) If some developer flips the world upside down with something new, I can guarentee that publishers will be all over them like flies to a fresh pile of dung. The point is, for the most part, that the publishers are the ones that pay your check and it is them that call the shots.

Reviewers are also to blame for this as well as over advertising. To prove my point - look at the forums filled with how great Doom 3/Hal-Life 2 was/is going to be, even before the games had been completed, guys were telling each other how game X was so going to kick game Y's behind - based on what, I would really like to know. People have already made up their minds with regards to games and reviewers are guilty too.

I can recall going back a few years already, many adventure games, being given scores of low 70's and low 80's when in fact they were lot better than that. Now when the general public see's a score in the 70's low 80's, they don't say to themselves, "Let me rush out straight away and buy that game" - NO - they pass over that score and rush out to check the game that scores very high 80's and even for the most part in the 90's. If reviewers suddenly started giving adventures (I am just using adventures as an example, so don't bite me for that :bleh:) high scores (obviously is they desered it) and started penalizing the so-called popular genres/games that over emphasize the importants of graphics, things would change. It is a simple as that.

I still recall reading a quite a few reviews with regards to adventures. They reviewer (this was said by quite a few of them) said the story was interesting, the characters were great, and the backgrounds were lucious, but the game just wasn't fast paced enough for them, that they didn't like the tricky puzzles and they would rather being playing some other fast-paced action game (For all those out there, I am not trying to bash your favourite FPS games, they may not on average be my cup of tea, but I do enjoy the odd one - so don't get me wrong. There are great games in that genre too)Now with reviews like that is it any wonder why the general public and newer generations of gamers arn't experiencing new things(or should I say old)...

The fact is,that there are some reviewers that say graphics don't make a game in one review, but in the next it is the review. Is it any wonder why we keep seeing the same games then? I am going to bash some people's favourite game, but relax.

Take Doom 3 for an example (stay clear with the torches and pitchforks) -

For the most part this game got good reviews. I have no problem with people liking something that I may not find so great. Different strokes for different folks. If there were more objective reviewers though, they would have said things along the following lines.

Amazing graphics, great sound, cheesy story, cumbersome flashlight execution (even though intentional) makes gameplay annoying. Repetitive gameplay. Find data cube, open locker, get ambushed and kill monsters. Too damn dark.

I am sure what I said, will get some people hot under the collar, but that's what it is. I sure someone is going to point out that you can make a similar argument for any game, and they are right, you can, but Doom 3 is nothing more than a pretty remake of the original - minus the large crowds of monsters. Some people with love it, others will hate it - something said by many reviewers. That statement alone should have been an indication to the reviewers though that the game may not be deserving of their high scores that they finally gave the game. (For all those out there already steaming, I am not saying its trashy game, just no where as good as it was made out to be) I may not be a fan of valve, but at least they give the characters - character and actually try to come up with a reasonably decent story line. Did id have to go for hell breaking out for the umpteenth time.

Flame away :cheers:

efthimios

01-05-2005, 11:15 AM

I don't get this. If you like YYY1 very much, and there is a new sequel of that game with better graphics and some more of the same gameplay, why not buy it and like it? If you are a developer that likes making certain type of games, and they also happen to sell well, why not continue to make them and the 45th sequel? It would be stupid of you not to do so.
I know I have a long list of old games that I would love and immediately buy (if I had the money) any sequel of them even if it meant just new graphics and easier compatibility with new systems.
As a customer you do have a choice, do not buy a game you do not like.
If you do not like a magazine or site the way it marks/reviews games, then stop using/buying it. Or if for some reason you continue to do so, just have in mind who the reviewer is and what the attitude of the magazine is. An example of this is my own favourite Computer Games (as it is called for a few years now), an american magazine that is for me the best out there. I do NOT always agree with their scores, but, they always give a detailed "list" of reasons they are giving a game low score etc. For example the reviewer might say he doesn't like this RTS game because of reason X. You as a customer reading this should be able to come to the conclusion that if you do not mind that the game has this X feature/bug/whatever you can just go out and buy it. No matter if the reviewer has given it a 2,4,5/5 stars. You know, use your brain, don't be so lazy.
There are also people who like to buy the 12500th FPS game because they simply love FPS games. Who am I to judge them? I LOVE turn based strategy/war games since my first one (UMS 1987) and whenever I can I buy any new ones, unless I know there is something bad with them (many unfixed bugs for example). There are people who do the same for the other types of games. They are more, they lead the market, simple enough, no?
As for types of games that do not sell enough, well, it happens. I will use as an example simulators. They kept making them FUUUULLL of bugs, without almost any form of replayability in terms of campaigns (some of them had mission editors, lazy bastards those developers :bleh: ) or even worse (for me) with linear campaigns/single missions. They kept releasing those sims that people were complaining for the above things. When customers stopped buying them because they were tired of playing the same mission over and over again for the nth time knowing the exact distance that SA-9 was waiting, or having the game crash or whatever, they just stopped buying them. The funny thing is that the developers (not so much the publishers) answering on why they stopped making sims they choose to say that they do not sell there is no market for them etc, and not that there were forcing uppon the public CRAP CRAP CRAP games and people either moved on to other types of games or remained with old good ones or less buggy and better few ones (like Microsoft's Flight Simulator series).
Not that the customers were always right. When you had people online and letters BITCHING about a missile being 500g lighter than the real thing, or how the canopy of the F5 when hit by the light of the Sun from 83 degrees should make the reflection of a duck or something then even the good developers start to think twice before making another sim.
I will even give a reason on why I mostly stopped buying Adventure games. (I buy one a year or so now) I am tired of them. There are nice games out there but I simply have had enough of them over the years. I have been playing adventure games since "The Pawn" and I have had enough. The biggest problem is that they are so linear they get very boring for me. Very few of them give you the freedom to do things differently. (Blade Runner for example)
OK, I will shut up now.

The Niles

01-05-2005, 01:03 PM

Charmed,

Last things first. When it comes to Doom3 vs. Half Life 2 discussion we could start a whole new discussion topic but I will say this here. Doom 3 was honest in what it wanted to be and stayed with that. Doom 3 is a first person SHOOTER and a dammed good one. It is not an interactive narration. Half Life 2 is also a first person Shooter but it desperately and, at times, clumsily tries not to be. What Doom3 turns into is repetitiveness but then you know that when you buy a game like that. Half Life 2 turns into a highly linear game that never gives you the kind of options you were lead to believe where available (puzzles can only be solved in one way and all that crap about being able to block doorways and the interactiveness of the AI in response to that is AWOL). Both games are very enjoyable in their own way but neither pushes the limits of the FPS genre very much further (Doom3 at least came to new heights when it comes to graphics, HL2 has the underused and over hyped physics engine (which isn't their own btw) but nothing we will not have forgotten in a years time). But then is whole episode gives us a good indication about the lengths developers are willing to and need to go to, in order to stay alive. Doom3 could not fail or it would mean the end of ID, the same is true for Half Life 2 and Valve. Publicity (in its extreme form we call it hype) makes more certain these games are going to be a success. Magazines are eager to get a scoop over the other magazines as that means their survival. The public falls for it every time as they are eager to play these games and in absence of that possibility at least about how great it will be. It is a win, win lose situation. I too have read about how great AoE3 will be and was exited with what I read. Unfortunately there is this little voice inside my head that tells me the end result will not be as rosy as we are lead to be believe it will be now.

Nothing as subjective as a review. In my opinion Half Life 2 got too high a score in my personal favourite magazine but there are many who think it should have been even higher. It does happen that a game is given an unfair review. I have read reviews about games in which the reviewer mentions how bad the previous game was from the same publisher as a reason to not buy that publishers latest game (what does that have to do with THIS game?), or where the reviewer casually disqualifies all games in a given genre because he does not like them. More insidious are those instances where magazines are paid to give favourable reviews to games (it is hard to prove but it happens). There is this Belgian magazine where I always subtract 10 points of their score to come up with a score I would give a game. This is all true but what you cannot claim is that reviews determine the success of a game. Many games have been given high scores (mostly deserved) and later became bargain bin fodder forgotten by all but a few. My personal favourite, Max Payne 2, suffered this fate as did Chrome and many others neither of us will ever hear from again. It isn’t easy to predict the success of games. Graphics are more important for some games then others. A FPS with lousy graphics is never going to sell. A high level strategic game is not hurt as much by the same flaw. That said it is possible for a reviewer to be less then linear in his or her reasoning. Many times a review is made at the last minute to meet a deadline and the first words on paper stay there, no time to think them over (I know what I’m talking about here). Not the prettiest acknowledgement but, there it is. Luckily a review is nothing more then an opinion anyway so take it for what it is.

Sequels to games are generally a good thing. I explained why this is in my previous post so I will refrain from repeating it here. In extreme cases like the FIFA series they are not however, I agree. These series are money makers designed not add anything significant but to make as much money as possible with the least amount of effort (Doom2 falls in this category, Doom 3 does not). Changing player names, in the case of FIFA, to reflect the current state could have simply been done by a free downloadable add-on. The other changes could have waited for a mayor overhaul once every few years. These money makers are regrettable but no one is forcing anyone to buy them. It is easy to knock publishers like EA but then we are not paying their huge bills. The thing I regret about EA is that they have not released a game in years I unconditionally liked.

870 words later my non-linear, ill constructed rant ends.

Charmed

01-05-2005, 02:38 PM

Oh, I so didn't want this to turn out into a Half-Life 2 vs Doom 3 debate. Trust me, I stay as far clear as I can from these type of posts. :ok:

You are perfectly right with regards to Doom 3, in that you know what your are getting. You are also right with regards to Half-Life 2 being hyped into this and that and it ends up not being exactly what you thought you would get. I can tell you I am not a huge fan of FPS, I can also tell you that Valve happens to be my least favourite developer, large part due to their "wonderful" water-vapour program, called steam. I was merely pointing out at that at least valve tried to make characters and create a story line. Doom 3's storyline is scarier than its monsters.

If it means anything Picard, I wasn't bashing one of your faourite games, merely using it as a tool for my argument. You could easily place many other games in that situation. I could do one with Half-Life 2 if you like :Brain: Same thing can be said for many games.

Picard I see you have come up for a system for reviers too :P, I too do that. I regulary increase of decrease their scores to come up with a fair reflextion.

Come bashing EA is fun - their motto: EA GAMES - CHALLENGE EVERYTHING could easily be changed to EA GAMES - BUY EVERYTHING, just ask Ubisoft, and ex-Westwood and ... If you don't see what's wrong in that, then I guess Microsoft are angels as well. Monopoloies are never good - in everything and in anything.

efthimios, it's not just my opinion with regards to sequels. The developers are saying the same thing, but its the publishers that pay their bills. As I stated in an earlier post there is nothing wrong with a sequel even another - there just needs to be a limit. It's all releative of course. I'm sure someone out there, would by the 20th sequel.

With regards to using my brain and being lazy, you are missing my point. I have no problem filtering through articles and reviews to find my games. I am talking about the general public. Look at what I said with regards to people, before its release, saying how great Half-Life 2 was going to be. Likewise, there was no way in hell that a reviewer would dare to criticise Half-Life 2. I am not sure of this, but I don't even think Half-Life 2 received a single score of below 90%. The game isn't as great as the reviewers make it sound. Many games are getting what they are getting all due to A) HYPE, B) GRAPHICS, and no I am not saying that having good graphics is a bad thing.

I also said I have no problem with people liking something different. DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS. With regards to adventure games, again it was an example, used to facilitate my arguement. It was included as an example to show what the industry is about.

Picard by the way, NILES rocks!

P.S. Picard, please don't tell me you are excited about Quake 4 :P I know it will have great graphics - but come on the 4th iteration. Save us Sid Meier or Warren Spector. :kosta:

Charmed

01-05-2005, 03:10 PM

Well at least there are still a few developers out there to try something new.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/hellgatelon...review_headline (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/hellgatelondon/preview_6123193.html?tag=boxcar_pc_preview_headlin e)

Ex Blizzard boys - trying something new - that's the spirit.

The Niles

01-05-2005, 03:43 PM

No I'm not excited about Quake 4. I'm not a FPS man myself either but I do like them on occasion. I would like to say that just because a game has come to a fourth fifth or fiftieth incarnation does not automatically become bad. For me the one, overriding question is, "is this game worth expense when compared to its previous version?". I do not know enough about Quake 4 to make that call but it has been a while since Quake 3 and there have been some big changes in FPS gaming (mainly the addition of vehicles as game play elements).

Sid Meier is himself a hype. The man is lauded by many as someone who can do no wrong and whose every project turns to gold. In my personal opinion Civ3 was the weakest game, when measured to the state of the gaming possibilities at its time of release, of the series. It only got an 83% score and it was completely deserved. I say this to illustrate the following; in all Sid Meier games I have played I have always found something dreadfully wrong. Something so wrong it makes me want to slam my head against a wall shouting, "Why, why, dear God why would ANYONE choose to do this?". Okay, over-dramatised but just look at the horrid unit handling in Civ3, the choice to not include multiplayer in Magic: The Gathering (still AWOL in vanilla Civ3 and horribly executed in its add-ons), the AI in Colonization, the bullshit story line in Alpha Centaury and the lack of game play depth in Sim-Golf.
Worse is still to come. From what I have seen about Civ4 (which, granted, is not a lot) it looks like he has not learned from his previous mistakes and is going the same route all over again.

Warren Spector has not made a game I liked since WingCommander II.

Yes it is fun to make fun of EA but it is also easy. Too easy. If the employees believe they are working in a sweat shop that is a matter for the unions to handle. Having no direction of where your project is heading is annoying but the price you pay for not paying your own bills (like those ex Westwood employees, whose company would have gone bankrupt had EA not bailed them out). He who pays decides. Sure you can say this kills creativity, but I doubt it. Once those ex-Westwood people launch their next game we will see if they where right in their accusations.
Monopolies are not good no, but EA does not have a monopoly, certainly not like Microsoft has. Not using Windows might be difficult for some but there is no difficulty in not being EA made games.
Ohh, and you don’t need to be an Angel in order to not be a monster.

Charmed

01-05-2005, 03:46 PM

Another good read guys -

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=8376

a1s

01-05-2005, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Charmed@May 1 2005, 03:10 PM
Well at least there are still a few developers out there to try something new.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/hellgatelon...review_headline (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/hellgatelondon/preview_6123193.html?tag=boxcar_pc_preview_headlin e)

Ex Blizzard boys - trying something new - that's the spirit.
it is cool. it is not new. which isn't bad, just let's face it the game is a cross between morowind and diablo, with firearms added for the kicks, nothing more.

efthimios

01-05-2005, 04:35 PM

The Picard

Wasn't Spector behind Deus Ex? You do not think Deus Ex was at least as good as Wing Commander 2?

DeathDude

01-05-2005, 04:56 PM

Yeah Spector was behind Deus Ex, a really classic game, one of my favourite games from him I'd have to say from the ones that I have played.

Zarkumo

01-05-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by a1s+May 1 2005, 03:47 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (a1s @ May 1 2005, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-Charmed@May 1 2005, 03:10 PM
Well at least there are still a few developers out there to try something new.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/hellgatelon...review_headline (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/hellgatelondon/preview_6123193.html?tag=boxcar_pc_preview_headlin e)

Ex Blizzard boys - trying something new - that's the spirit.
it is cool. it is not new. which isn't bad, just let's face it the game is a cross between morowind and diablo, with firearms added for the kicks, nothing more. [/b][/quote]
Which leads me to the question: what would you consider genuinely new then?? As I already said above, everything in the future will be a combination of elements that have already been there somewhere.
But you are also right in separating newness and goodness. We want good games, not new games. Being new is in itself not a valuable quality.

a1s

02-05-2005, 03:19 PM

that's where you're wrong. while it's true that a consumer I (you, he, it...) want a good game, not a new game, BUT innvoation is extremely important, because it's the key to progress. so in truth we need two kind of games, what I would analogicaly call art and craft- a group of (posibly crapy) games with new ideas and a (larger) group of sure hit games which are bought by the millions. Unfortunatley the cost of producing a crapy game is very high, and the knowledge aqured from it is comunal (I mean that all people and companies are alowed to use your good ideas), which leads me to a conclusion- game industry is not dying, but neither is it developing , and (in a few decades of stability) it will probably go downhill from what it is now. and REAL new ideas come very rarely- what was the last breaktrough in literature? 1.5 centuries ago (invention of science fiction)!
So don't expect new stuff just accept the stability.

P.S. I thought more about Hellgate, it's not across between diablo and Elders scrolls, but between diablo and Deus Ex.

efthimios

02-05-2005, 04:00 PM

Actualy science fiction was "invented" far earlier than that. About 1 century AD (or something close to that) , there was a greek writer (no I do not remember his name :-( ) who wrote about an expedition to our moon and something like that. I read it like 15 years ago so I don't remember much, but I was impressed.

Borodin

02-05-2005, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by efthimios@May 2 2005, 04:00 PM
Actualy science fiction was "invented" far earlier than that. About 1 century AD (or something close to that) , there was a greek writer (no I do not remember his name :-( ) who wrote about an expedition to our moon and something like that. I read it like 15 years ago so I don't remember much, but I was impressed.
That wasn't science fiction, but part of the parody genre: placing a tale "on the moon" was equivalent to the contemporary literate, upper class audience that read it of saying, "this is unreal, happening in nowhere land." It's the same as the endless Slavic folktales that start off, "In a time that wasn't a time, in a place that wasn't a place..."

gregor

02-05-2005, 04:54 PM

Hellgate seems to me more like Doom with RPG elements.

Yet i can't understand why they don't make games such as Ultima underworld - that one was a big success and only got one sequel. These days they could throw in cooperative mode, or different puzzles which could also inlcude startegy etc. you could also fly on some missions maybe on a dragon or something (like a flight simulation). Interesting how no one tried something like that.

A merge that would be succesful because it would be as easy as it would be chalenging. That would be new.

DeathDude

02-05-2005, 06:27 PM

I feel that innovation is important as it can help to refresh a genre every now and then especially if the genre has been done to death in some cases. Unfortuantely that's the risk essentially, do you try an innovative strategy for a particular game, possibily alerting the gameplay or whatnot, maybe even alienating fans of that genre, it's a risk that some developers will take.

But as it's been said, costs being so high right now and are continuing to grow, one bad move in the industry and that could be it for a company, all the hard work and such down the drain.

efthimios

02-05-2005, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Borodin+May 2 2005, 04:11 PM****</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Borodin @ May 2 2005, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ******QuoteBegin-efthimios@May 2 2005, 04:00 PM
Actualy science fiction was "invented" far earlier than that.* About 1 century AD (or something close to that) , there was a greek writer (no I do not remember his name :-( )* who wrote about an expedition to our moon and something like that.* I read it like 15 years ago so I don't remember much, but I was impressed.
That wasn't science fiction, but part of the parody genre: placing a tale "on the moon" was equivalent to the contemporary literate, upper class audience that read it of saying, "this is unreal, happening in nowhere land." It's the same as the endless Slavic folktales that start off, "In a time that wasn't a time, in a place that wasn't a place..." [/b][/quote]
Boroding, that is like most of science fiction...
Take Star Trek or Star Wars, or most well known sci fi, they are all like that.

MV75

02-05-2005, 10:53 PM

The sooner we stop listening to that opinionated old fart that's never played a game in his life, yet feels he is the authority on gaming that keeps popping up every so often to keep saying the same thing, we'll be better off. He'll rehash the same old dribble when quake4 comes out.

Of course the games don't change much, to the newer generations it's all new like his kids.

As for me, live on abandonware! I don't want any remakes of old games as I have personally played some and while the graphics are better, they usually end up with some sort of screwed over interface/control system and just don't recapture the feeling of the original. EG: Devil's whiskey. Give me BT2 anyday. The only reworks I do like are those like exult. Compatibility, resolution options while keeping the same interface/game. We're all stuck in our own "generation". Just watch, in 10-15 years the current generation will be abandon wareing the current games and having a bitch about the new ones and how the gaming industry is going to die soon. Heck, it's happened with the generation before mine. What I call the classics of ~1990, they called them crap.

So let them keep making new games, they won't die out anytime soon.
________
Titty (http://www.fucktube.com/video/11268/two-busty-blonde-babes-tittyfucks-a-****)

Kezz

04-05-2005, 09:20 PM

There won't be a massive destruction of the gaming industry. Too many people enjoy games for the industry to simply up and disappear. There will, however, most likely be a small, brief collapse and restructuring, as the Picard said. During this time all the little problems like polarization of resources will probably all be solved, putting ideas back into the market and stimulating growth.

As for starship troopers, yeah it was a very dumb movie, but anyone with more than half a brain and a little intuition could see that the producers PURPOSELY made the movie bad. It's pretty obvious that the movie is meant to be simple, and to poke fun at random whatnots.

DeathDude

04-05-2005, 10:38 PM

I don't see a destruction happening in the industry any time soon, it continues to grow year after year, this year once figures come out, I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing again another increase in profits as a whole for the industry, as long as quality products come out, I think that's a key to all the issue, innovation helps and all we need to see is the brave company step out and take that chance, and hopefully it all goes well, others will learn by example.

WildZeppelin

08-05-2005, 12:24 AM

Adventure games have been going the way of the dodo for a couple of easily understood reasons. I'll keep it simple, and it has little to do with fun overall.

1: From a business standpoint, a FPS is MUCH MUCH easier to push out than an adventure game like Darklands or Daggerfall etc... People are easily pacified, so why bust your behind makings games that require so much finess and hard work when you can make subtle changes, pay fewer people, or pay less to fewer people, and still pacify the masses and your wallet? That's why FPS have thrived. I don't buy many of them, because they have so little to offer, but I do admit to liking Farcry and Doom3 which are recent. I can argue several aspects of D3 I thought could be better or improved, but that's not what this is about, and I'm not on IDs payroll.
2: Debugging. Again, large adventure games are so complex. Why do you think daggerfall was plagued with crashes and patches? Deadlines, money, and difficult programming. FPS's are much easier which again lead to less costs.
3: Demand. People like them because it's eye candy that's usually fast paced. Watch people who rate movies. All they want is typical unintellectual plots and dialogue. They've been dumbed down, and are either doped on Ritalin, or just incapable of creative problem solving.
4: Hardware. Hardware is getting there. I'm really interested in seeing what Oblivian will be like. I've just finally upgraded my system to have a 24" widescreen TFT at 1920x1200 and a AIW X800XT 256. I'm able to run farcry at that res. with all detail at ultra, and it's smooth. I love atmosphere, and I sacrifice lots (because I'm certainly not rich) to be immersed and entertained. I'm already wondering how long it will be before gaming developers take advantage of using the widescreen format support, and if other people are willing to pay into this. So many just don't seem to care to support it, and that means the costs will stay high longer without the support. If I could play a game like Darklands, true to how it was then, or the original Tie-Fighter on par with D3 graphics, I'd be set a-bliss.
Maybe it'll come. People lose interest fast too, and that'll prompt developers to grab them back by challenging them to things they haven't done. Hense, adventure again. Let's just hope it's not (find the key, match it to the door, enter) puzzles.

xoopx

08-05-2005, 12:39 AM

new ideas are always welcome, but new ideas are NOT required for a game to be good.
you can just make a good game.
i remember when quake 3 and UT came out, there was this huge buzz over multiplayer FPS. even though those 2 are really BORING multiplayer fps.
im enjoying return to castle wolfenstein. im looking forward to quake 4. i have no intention of even buying half life 2, because valve and steam annoyed me more than i can describe. doom 3 didnt get anyone excited enough for me to want to try it either.

a good example of how 'new ideas' arent always better are what happened with the MYST games - they experimented with realtime 3d with realmyst and the URU games, but the latest one is in the old school slideshow format (but prettier with video in it) because people wanted that control method, not 3d.

Chuck the plant

08-05-2005, 01:00 AM

Not that SST-issue again... got only ONE thing to say: If one's too dumb to actually "get it", it's neither the movie nor the director who's to blame...

And if one uses THAT example to bash the "mindlesness" of consumers, they are biting their own tail. LOL

@ topic: Why would there be a breakdown? Just because there's nothing "new"? What IS new anyway? When was the first time something REALLY new came into the games-world? I guess 3D was that, but pretty much EVERY genre has been invented already shortly after games became a semi-mass-phenomenon for the first time in the early 80s. Since then everything "new" has just been an "enhancement".

We had "Space Invaders" - Birth of the shooter-genre. Then followed several "enhancements" of the game-principle. First scrolling, additional weapons, stage bosses, scrolling in 3d, then free-roaming scrolling in 3d... but in it's very core, the principle itself didn't REALLY change. Of course the FEELING is totally different nowadays, but there will ALWAYS be ways of altering the feeling of games. 3d, surround-sound, next step will probably be more direct means of transmitting visual- and accustical informations to the player, maybe new ways of "force feedback" will alter the feeling as well. But is that really GENUINLY new?

If that ISN'T what you call genuinly new, than there will ALWAYS be something "new", and surely enough to keep most consumers going.

a1s

08-05-2005, 01:59 AM

2 WildZeppelin: not to be rude, but Daggerfall and darklands are RPGs, while I personaly like those even more than adventures, they still arent the same :D

new Ideas are the information ages mutations- they aren't beneficial 99% of the time, yet it's that 1% that makes all the difference in perspective. So in truth "the new" won't usualy be "the good" (try palying wolfenstein and dune), and if the myst series failed in their 360 panarama idea, it should not be considered as a general failture, but as a thing that was tried and found unacceptable at present time. progress moves on to it's next victim.

xoopx

08-05-2005, 09:18 AM

half the time "new" and "revolutionary" are swallowed by the fanboys, but in a lot of cases its not the first time its been used.
take half life 2 and its "real world physics" .......
tresspasser has real world physics and its a 1998 game. the same year as half life 1 was released

efthimios

08-05-2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by a1s@May 8 2005, 01:59 AM
2 WildZeppelin: not to be rude, but Daggerfall and darklands are RPGs, while I personaly like those even more than adventures, they still arent the same :D

Thank you! It was driving me crazy. :ok:

Morbid_Pathologist

08-05-2005, 10:26 AM

bah, games arent what they used to be, nowadays i cant look at a game the same way i look at crusader no remorse/no regret's cheesy acting or its entertaining deaths.

"modern" games are just refined ideas, "originality" doesnt exist anymore...unless they try something stupid like C&C with bank management and while your at it, control your "sims" around the new GDI base...bah, of course, thats something EA would have a go at.

i remember when quake 3 and UT came out, there was this huge buzz over multiplayer FPS. even though those 2 are really BORING multiplayer fps.

....at least their better than counter-strike :whistle:

a1s

08-05-2005, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Morbid_Pathologist@May 8 2005, 10:26 AM
C&C with bank management and while your at it, control your "sims" around the new GDI base
pure geniuss! you should be the chief Idea designer at EA (it wouldn't hurt them) :D
EDIT: adding a smiley :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

xoopx

08-05-2005, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Morbid_Pathologist@May 8 2005, 10:26 AM

....at least their better than counter-strike :whistle:
better than the joke counter-strike turned into. but counter-strike 6-7 betas wiped the floor with them

Microprose Veteran

08-05-2005, 06:04 PM

Mr. Picard,

You are entitled to your criticisms of the great Sid Meier of course.

Personally, I've never had that "This is all WRONG" feeling whenever I played a Sid Meier game. Perhaps a "hm, he could've done this better" but anyway...

The point is, people like I (intelligent, favor strategy over action) actually like even enjoy playing games made by the great Sid Meier.

So yeah, Colonization has a lot of weak points, but still, playing it in Viceroy mode is a helluva lot of fun!

Alpha Centauri: what about the story line? It's just Civ on a different planet. But the visuals were more interesting (actual 3-D surface) and the sci-fi-storyline wasn't bad either. And I must admit: it's a damned hard game and the AI is better than in any other Sid Meier strategy game I've played.

Civ III: still haven't played this at the hardest level, but it's a great, great game. It made me even almost feel sympathetic to the USA's quest for oil in the Middle East...

My point is, these games may be intended as simulations of real situations, but at the core they are games. And damned good games!

And let's not forget the great, great game "Pirates!" on the humble C=64!

efthimios

08-05-2005, 06:38 PM

Or all the other 10s of platforms it was also released.

Lizard

08-05-2005, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Microprose Veteran@May 8 2005, 08:04 PM
Mr. Picard,

You are entitled to your criticisms of the great Sid Meier of course.

Personally, I've never had that "This is all WRONG" feeling whenever I played a Sid Meier game. Perhaps a "hm, he could've done this better" but anyway...

The point is, people like I (intelligent, favor strategy over action) actually like even enjoy playing games made by the great Sid Meier.

So yeah, Colonization has a lot of weak points, but still, playing it in Viceroy mode is a helluva lot of fun!

Alpha Centauri: what about the story line? It's just Civ on a different planet. But the visuals were more interesting (actual 3-D surface) and the sci-fi-storyline wasn't bad either. And I must admit: it's a damned hard game and the AI is better than in any other Sid Meier strategy game I've played.

Civ III: still haven't played this at the hardest level, but it's a great, great game. It made me even almost feel sympathetic to the USA's quest for oil in the Middle East...

My point is, these games may be intended as simulations of real situations, but at the core they are games. And damned good games!

And let's not forget the great, great game "Pirates!" on the humble C=64!
I agree with all,except for civ 3.It was better than average, but it hasnt got that SOMETHING that forced me to play all other Civilization,ColonizationAlpha.Centauri or Pirates games second,third,fourth.... time again.

Btw what happened to Peter Molyneux(dont know about spelling)???
He was one of the most original game creator I know....

efthimios

08-05-2005, 10:24 PM

He is behind the new Black and white game. With the amazing original name of Black & White 2.

WildZeppelin

09-05-2005, 01:56 AM

I don't see a difference between RPG and adventure, really. The variations between the two delve little into something so remotely different that their classification justifies alternate outlooks. Darklands and Daggerfall were adventurous because they were based on exploration and completion of tasks, but you could venture anywhere and everywhere you just about wanted. So you define the difference to me? Heck, anything with a little bit of action could be authentically labelled as "adventure". RPG, hense "Role-Playing Game" entitles the role you take on is now -YOU-. Darklands was you controlling 4 characters that are themselves. When you get beind a gun in Doom, that character is now -YOU-, right? RPG?! or FPS? It really doesn't matter. I'm talking about GAMES, not schemantics.
Now, if we can stay focused...
Cell processors will be the next phase, along with the hardware interphases of voice and touchpad technology. Cells will bring the most advantageous element, as enemies can have programmable AI that's devoted to their behavior solely. Brings about a whole new experience I'd be looking forward to. Don't worry about physics. For some people, they like driving a car that doesn't ACT like a real car, but can go a bit faster, turn a bit sharper or have more loose traction. When you play some of the mods like in vice city you'll see a whole range of variations people all enjoy. The mod community on PCs will take care of most of the physics aspects. Game developers just need to focus on ideas and atmosphere, as well as a decent story for the single player game.

a1s

09-05-2005, 02:12 AM

you're losing it, WildZepellin. we're talking about genres (which you with such disgudt call semantics), and mind you the RPG genre (defined as whatever has 'RPG' written on the box) does very well for itself, allthough it goes too far tawards action for my taste.
If you want to see an adventure (look up the previous comment) look at 'monkey Island', you can have your doubts about 'quest for glory', but only shock prevents me from laughing hystericaly at anyone who dares to call daggerfall an adventure.
While the truth is we just have different defenitions of adventure, mine has the benefit of being official (go to the main page and find all the titles mentioned here (use arena instead of daggerfall))

efthimios

09-05-2005, 08:44 AM

I agree with our little borg friend. An Adventure and an RPG game are very different. One of the main differences is that in an RPG you have a character/team that keeps improving its own stats. In an adventure game you don't even have stats for your character/team, much less change them.
In general I do not find myself any problem figuring out which game is what (RPG or Adventure).
The only game that I can think of that I disagree with most people is Diablo, which I just cannot see as a RPG, but an action game, but that is just me.

Microprose Veteran

09-05-2005, 09:09 PM

You may all laugh whilst reading this,

but I think that both simulators and strategy games have a very big RPG factor in them. I mean, here I was, playing Gunship on my trusty C=64... For the time I was flying the mission, I was a real Gunship pilot trying to desperately stop the red steamroller from the east... Ah those were the days. Congressional Medal Of Honor!

Another former big name: whatever happened to "Midwinter" creator Mike Singleton?

xoopx

09-05-2005, 10:29 PM

black and white 2 is a perfectly good name! it uses the previous titles success, and it reduces confusion.
as long as they put more work into the game, than the name ;)

Ioncannon

09-05-2005, 11:21 PM

Another example on EA on destroying a comapany who made good original games and turning everything into crap: Westwood. Such new ideas like C&C and Dune, what happens when ea took em over? Lets put in AWSOME graphics and make it so no pc can run it (at the time). Let put it into a middle Eastern setting, all the dumbasses want to kill arabs!!!! (Here is one that gets me the most): Lets make NO STORY WHATSOEVER!!!! Yes I am talking about C&C Generals... this is the proud work of EA (since like 2 people worked on it from the original Westwood team).

efthimios

09-05-2005, 11:29 PM

I still liked a lot Generals with the Zero Expansion though.
I remember I was upset when I found out that EA completely bought WW, but of course there was nothing I could do about it.
The good thing is that almost everybody from the former WW are now together under the new Petroglyph studios and they are making what might become the best Star Wars game ever. :-)

As for Mike Singleton I don't know what he is doing now but the last time I heard of him was with Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb about 1 year or so ago. Great action game btw. Perhaps my favourite of this type (Tomb Raider type) game. It figures with this guy in the development I guess.

DeathDude

10-05-2005, 12:06 AM

Yeah EA's strategy as of late has been something to watch, that whole incident with Ubisoft was something interesting, but I was glad to see that UbiSoft wasn't going to give into EA's ploys of buying those shares, even though they didn't claim if wasn't anything hostile.

Jim6

10-05-2005, 12:46 AM

Well, I'm not going in for any more EA bashing, aside from saying more or less what (I think!) people are saying here but from a different perspective: Is it just me, or is it the easiness of the games that is the main problem? I'm not talking about save-load-save-load-finished kind of ease, but rather the total lack of immersiveness caused by the lack of interaction and complexity. Compare: Xcom1 and say... the Sims. Even Xcom1 and (what's now an oldie) Incubation. Picard: you mentioned Civ3: compare that to Master of Magic, or even Civ2.

I'm not sure, but there *is* a certain something lacking from the modern slew of games that are out there.

Whoever said that about Tie Fighter - just play the '95 remake; there's no need for Doom3 style graphics!

Microprose Veteran

10-05-2005, 01:28 AM

Well, being originally a simulator-freak (now more a strategy gamer), I can only say that better 3-D graphics, sound, etc, have done wonders for the simulator games.

I'm still playing Ghost Recon and it's an awesome simulation. It doesn't even feel like a game sometimes, though I understand some people will find the politics not sound. Anyway, after some patches the enemy AI is even better and now I have big problems keeping my team alive in some missions. :rifle:

Like this mission where you have to support a tank team, capture a town and destroy artillery on hill tops. Just now I completed the mission again, best result so far: only two of my team killed. The tank was destroyed unfortunately, as was most of the tank infantry. But 4 others of my team made it and we got those artillery pieces... :sniper:

I wouldn't recommend playing this game for prolonged sessions, but for a quick shoot (15-25 minutes) it's superb. A real thinking, tactical shooter this one.

CIV II had one big mistake: you could use cannon to attack (it's only a support unit) and if the enemy had railroad tracks you could almost play like you were using tanks instead in a blitzkrieg campaign. I also think the 'Culture' factor in CIV III adds much to realism and captured cities revolting is a nightmare but look at reality. It's not that easy to capture and hold territory (with people on it).