«

[Charmed]

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

[efthimios]

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]

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]

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. k:

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.

[Charmed]

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

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/hellgatelon...review_headline

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

[The Niles]

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]

Another good read guys -

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

[a1s]

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

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]

The Picard

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

[DeathDude]

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.