[Eagle of Fire]

1. I agree. Why, did someone tell you to shut up and go away? I don't recall reading anything of the sort in this thread.

I only responded to your classical rebutals. And in this specific one, telling someone that they are not part of the majority and should either pick it up or leave it be pretty much mean shut up and get out if you don't like it.

2. Let's try to stick to facts and leave hyperbole out of this (it is technically possible to do that in a discussion, or so I've heard), unless you really think you've played more games than someone could possibly dream up in 750 years. Disparaging Civilization IV when you've only played Colonization IV is like disparaging a band when you've only heard remixes of their songs.

The thing is, Colonization IV is really only a cheap mod to Civilization IV. I can't believe that they actually did it, it was obviously done to shut up Colonization fanatics while making a clear money grab. Think about it... They had already made one game (Civ IV) which was what they call a success... Then they take exactly the same engine, with little to no modifications to the game itself, and ship Colonization IV with it. The worse part is that most people don't even seem to realize it...

Heck, I could have do exactly the same with Civ III scenario editor!

3. I am in total agreement that focusing on graphics über alles makes for a crappy game, but you seem to be of the opinion that there is no possible way for a game to have good graphics and engaging gameplay, to the point where you will dismiss out-of-hand any game that looks halfway decent.

Halfway decent is not decent enough. This has nothing to do with the graphics per se. I guess you don't get what "graphics does not make a game", so I'll spell it out again: it means that you cannot make a great game by focusing solely on graphics. If you take many "new" games and study them, you will realize that the only thing which is marginally better than the other same genre title on the same shelf in your local store is graphics. That is what "graphics does not make a game" mean, because those kind of games focus primarily on having good graphics nice on the eyes and focus on the real game later.

A real game do the opposite: you take a great idea, build on it, then expand the graphics around it so it doesn't impede on the original idea. But even then it is very easy by upgrading the graphics to completely change the original gameplay idea...

So, to answer your question... No, I don't immediately flag games as bad only because they have awesome graphics. There is many other criteria that I follow for my own personal critique, and the graphics per se are really not a big factor here.

4. The topic of business would be irrelevant to a discussion about the state of the gaming industry? I disagree, as do a number of other people who've brought it up in this thread. Like it or not, game companies exist to make money, and they do so by producing games that sell. If you don't like FPS games, or sports games, or adventure games, or MMORPGs, don't buy them (or rent them, in the case of MMORPGs). If someone produces a game that you do like (assuming such a thing is possible), buy it. Companies care where you spend your money, not what you think of other people who buy their products.

*sigh* Ok, if you absolutely want to go into the business discussion...

It is unfortunately another flawed argument: that argument everybody knows, "if you don't like what a company does don't purchase its products and it will either be forced to change or go under" work well for local business but simply don't hold the road when you have a big enough pool of consumers ready to purchase the product anyways. Because as the pool of consumer grows, so does your awareness campaign and the number of people you need to reach out so it actually work. As you might have guessed it, the Internet really change a lot of things here. Both ways. Suddenly you can purchase things which come from the other side of the world as a end consumer (Ebay), or at the other side of the State (Amazon and similar sites). What might be bad somewhere is good elsewhere, and as long as the goods don't spoil only the shipping time change.

So, as long as a company sell the minimum amount they need to keep head above water, they're good. Even if you actually manage to bring enough people in a while state to boycott a specific product. And as the rest of the items sell with time, they eventually get even more money.

There really is a whole world of new and different marketing and business models nowaday. But there is one very specific model which always won over the decades if you care to do a little research on gaming in general: cheap and numerous items always win on higher quality products. There is plenty of examples: Atari winning over ColecoVision, Nintendo winning over Sega, Personnal Computers winning over both Commodore and Amiga... All those products which won over their competitors over the ages were the cheapest and lowest quality product, which won in the end over numbers rather than over quality.

This is exactly what is happening right now in the PC industry too. Games which get out are only shadows of themselves right now, but will continue to rule the industry as long as they are cheap enough to sell enough in good number. At the cost of quality. Which, for a game, mean gameplay and fun. Unless you really love very basic and almost mindnumbing gameplay and fun which last for about 8 hours top.

That is something I simply cannot accept, especially since the gaming industry already had it right on that aspect of gaming years ago. And as a true gamer, I think this whole shenanigan is worth being opposed to when ever it is possible.

5. It was probably unintentional, but that's the most optimistic thing you've said in this thread. After all, if you're not willing to change anything, the situation must not be nearly as desperate as you've made it out to be.

Hummm... What's optimistic in what I said? That games have gone the gameplay first graphics last road and became huge success?

Well, nevermind that the vast majority of them are indie games which will never actually be finished?

Anyways, the fact that I do not wish to actually do something directly to change the sad state of PC gaming right now do not mean that it already desperate or not. As I had already mentioned in my other post, there simply came a time at which I could not care anymore about directly seeking out more good games in the pile of bad ones. And as I already mentioned also, I simply can't see how we could actually do something about it. Saying "build a game!" is not an argument. Saying "don't buy it if you don't like it!" is not an argument either, especially since everybody seem to agree with the anti-hacked game community. How are you supposed to know if you like a game enough or not to actually pay full price for it without trying it first? The only option would be not to buy new games at all...

Anyways... I could probably go on and on... But that would not serve much purpose than to look like someone madly ranting away...