Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sensei]

I rather enjoyed Mount & Blade. Forced to pick my poison, I'd usually choose lack of polish over lack of features. Not that anyone should be expected to be steadfast allies of such a choice, you aren't losing anything from playing games on both sides of the fence.

[SalmonGod]

That's a good point, but there are two problems with it: First, that's how it's supposed to work, but very often it just doesn't. As I said previously, I've had many, many cases of a town absolutely packed with a certain type of goods but with the price still high. The second problem is that the economy is there more or less for its own sake, it doesn't tie into anything else. Trade supposedly influences the prosperity of settlements, which in turn affect the amount of money that settlement is then able to produce in taxes, right? Except as a player you have tons of ways to make money other than trading and collecting taxes, like investing in businesses, selling loot and slaves, raiding enemy villages, etc. As a result, you don't really care whether a town is prosperous or has just been looted, and even if you did care there's not really anything you can do about it. The effect on the player is minimal, and the effect on AI lords is completely nil since they seem to have unlimited funds and the ability to conjure troops out of thin air anyway.

I don't see how it exists for its own sake, as the player is expected to feed, hire, and pay wages to their troops, so upkeep is a big deal.  You're pretty much forced to wade knee-deep in the economy for a good long time before you can support the numbers necessary for major battlefield effectiveness.  There are, as you say, lots of different ways to go about raising funds, but this is a feature offering re-playability and appeal to a wider range of play styles.  Plus, every method of raising money has large effects on gameplay.  Doing quests raises or lowers reputation with various people, which opens up different gameplay options.  Razing villages produces short term gain, but long-term difficulty as you probably want to own those villages eventually, at which point you'll want them to be healthy and cooperative.  Looting battlefields and selling slaves is great also, but requires that you be well-established to begin with and it's easy to screw up a couple times and fizzle out as you need to balance finding victims challenging enough to produce loot capable of maintaining your force without losing any battles, leading to loss of morale, leading to more lost battles, leading to you having to start all over again building up your wealth and military presence.  I could go on. 

All of this stuff, in my experience, has a pretty dramatic effect on the player, and I'm pretty sure it has some effect on the AI lords as well.  A faction put under tons of pressure will get ground down, as they will lose battles and then re-appear quickly with another force, but after so long you will notice the number and quality of their forces will dwindle.  If it was as hard for them to bounce back from a loss as it is for you, the game would be way too easy.

And I cannot compare this level of depth in an open-world dynamically-evolving system to any other major corporate produced titles (that I have played) except for maybe the Civilization franchise.  I'm not exactly snobbish about it.  I will play flashier, mainstream games and enjoy the hell out of them... but it's short-lived.  You win the game, you do everything there is to do, and it's over.  Then it's back to these indie titles that are simply designed not to run out of stuff to do, despite being less polished in other aspects.

[Sordid]

I can give you several examples of a polished, complex indie game (Matrix Games tend to release those). Unless you can give me an example of a mainstream game with the level of complication of "Distant Worlds" (as in - working AI doing micromanagement for you), it will be hard to convince me.

Having never played Distant Worlds, I don't even know what to look for.

It's still more then you can expect from most games. Usually after releasing the game only bugfixes follow. Also, there were making some big changes in AI and game balance.

I find it quite funny how you're upholding this as something of a virue. I take the opposite view: Having to add features to a game post-release means it was rushed and released incomplete. That's something developers should be chastised for, not praised.

In your last post you made it sound that it is common for developers to actively make decisions during making the game. Is this your best example? Company where some of the employees practically are living legends of the game development world and they still had to threaten the management with quitting to make their point?

Really? You ask for some examples, I give them to you, and you go "these aren't good enough"? Moving the goalpost much? You asked for "any examples", I gave you two. The end.

Well, I agree with this partially - when a company becomes larger, it needs more and more money to even maintain its structure. So its road to become evil corporation is pretty much inevitable. Still - we as players don't have to like it or even accept it. Hence numerous rants.

Well we don't have to, but we should. Unless we enjoy numerous pointless rants.

Not exactly. Their job is to direct employees and this is something they have to do every day. The problem is that if an incompetent moron is somewhere high in the company's ladder, there isn't much that anyone can do unless he does something really outrageous. But I have seen very good managers too - it's a shame they usually end up doing twice as much as they should, because they have also to deal with the damages done by the incompetent ones.

Sounds like there's need for some quality control mechanism.

It's not true anymore. Since one of the more recent patches they actually have to gather their troops from the villages, I heard.

Really? I must've missed that. So after what, five or six years in development the game is finally patched up enough that it doesn't need to outrageously cheat in order to even function? Well I guess that's something.

And I cannot compare this level of depth in an open-world dynamically-evolving system to any other major corporate produced titles (that I have played) except for maybe the Civilization franchise.  I'm not exactly snobbish about it.  I will play flashier, mainstream games and enjoy the hell out of them... but it's short-lived.  You win the game, you do everything there is to do, and it's over.  Then it's back to these indie titles that are simply designed not to run out of stuff to do, despite being less polished in other aspects.

I actually got bored of M&B quite a few years ago.

[Gantolandon]

Having never played Distant Worlds, I don't even know what to look for.

A game where AI does all the micromanaging. Apart from failed Master of Orion 3, I don't know any other mainstream which tried to do this.

I find it quite funny how you're upholding this as something of a virue. I take the opposite view: Having to add features to a game post-release means it was rushed and released incomplete. That's something developers should be chastised for, not praised.

Well, I don't see this as a great idea either, but it has some advantages too. Several key parts of the game were improved that way. Most of the mainstream game companies wouldn't bother.

Really? You ask for some examples, I give them to you, and you go "these aren't good enough"? Moving the goalpost much? You asked for "any examples", I gave you two. The end.

From what I've heard, development teams actually discuss what their next project is going to be.

This is what you claimed before.

Any examples of the big companies where the developer can actually decide what kind of game will he make?

This is what I asked for. "Can actually decide" obviously doesn't mean "has to threaten the management with his resignation". It is so obvious I shouldn't really need to explain that.

Well we don't have to, but we should. Unless we enjoy numerous pointless rants.

We shouldn't. It's not that ranting hurts anyone and it makes people be aware of the problem. It's better than "shut up and don't buy". No one tells those people who actually like mainstream games to sit quietly so I don't see any reason, why should I.

Really? I must've missed that. So after what, five or six years in development the game is finally patched up enough that it doesn't need to outrageously cheat in order to even function? Well I guess that's something.

At least it is patched. Again, most mainstream companies wouldn't bother.

[Sordid]

A game where AI does all the micromanaging. Apart from failed Master of Orion 3, I don't know any other mainstream which tried to do this.

Again, I see micromanagement as a design flaw, not something to be touted as a feature. Writing an AI that takes care of it is impressive, but it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

This is what you claimed before.

Notice the word "all" is not in that statement. Obviously until you prove your ability you won't be allowed to make important decisions. That's true of any profession.

This is what I asked for. "Can actually decide" obviously doesn't mean "has to threaten the management with his resignation". It is so obvious I shouldn't really need to explain that.

The person who gets to do the decisions is the person in power. When two people's ideas clash, the only way to resolve it is with conflict that establishes which of them is in charge. It's so obvious I shouldn't even need to explain it.

We shouldn't. It's not that ranting hurts anyone and it makes people be aware of the problem. It's better than "shut up and don't buy".

Is it? Ranting won't change anything, only impacting the developers' bottom line will.

At least it is patched. Again, most mainstream companies wouldn't bother.

Wouldn't need to, you mean. That's what I was talking about in terms of polish. Yes, TW managed to eventually piece their brainchild together into a relatively coherent whole, kudos to them, but how long did it take them? And is it even on par with the industry standard? Fuck no.

[Gantolandon]

Again, I see micromanagement as a design flaw, not something to be toutes as a feature. Writing an AI that takes care of it is impressive, but it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Wait, what? Please define what you consider micromanagement then and tell me, how do you imagine a strategy game without it.

Is it? Ranting won't change anything, only impacting the bottom line will.

Impacting the bottom line is impossible without telling people what the problem is.

Notice the word "all" is not in that statement.

You stated it as if it happened often and if it was a part of the process.

Wouldn't need to, you mean. That's what I was talking about in terms of polish.

Yes, it would. If you ever look at the game design documents and compare it with the state after release, you'll see two different games. Many of desired functionalities doesn't make it to the final version, are deactivated or cut entirely and never touched again.

The person who gets to do the decisions is the person in power. When two people's ideas clash, the only way to resolve it is with conflict that establishes which of them is in charge. It's so obvious I shouldn't even need to explain it.

I'm getting tired of this. I asked about an example of a company, where the developers actually can decide what kind of game are they going to do. Most people would already understand what I meant. If you're willing to engage in "find a loophole" game, then fine, but do that without me. Either give me an example, or back off. Otherwise discuss with someone else.

[Haschel]

This entire discussion seems pretty silly to me, but one point that keeps popping up is bugging the hell out of me. It keeps being said that only small indie developers choose what game they are going to start making next, where larger developers are being told what to make by... What? The big money CEO publishers? Huh? I don't claim to know anything about the industry, but I'm PRETTY SURE developers make decisions about games regardless of how large. People at the top may say "Hey guys we're coming up to the deadline and/or our budget's getting a bit low. We need to cut X out of game Y" but ultimately Developers are still the people coming up with an idea for a game. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, it just doesn't match up with what I've heard.

[SalmonGod]

This entire discussion seems pretty silly to me, but one point that keeps popping up is bugging the hell out of me. It keeps being said that only small indie developers choose what game they are going to start making next, where larger developers are being told what to make by... What? The big money CEO publishers? Huh? I don't claim to know anything about the industry, but I'm PRETTY SURE developers make decisions about games regardless of how large. People at the top may say "Hey guys we're coming up to the deadline and/or our budget's getting a bit low. We need to cut X out of game Y" but ultimately Developers are still the people coming up with an idea for a game. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, it just doesn't match up with what I've heard.

I'm pretty sure there are a few general patterns within the corporate environment.

1.  Developers come up with idea, but have to pitch it to executives for approval.

2.  Developers put out a successful title, and are from then on put under heavy pressure or outright commanded to milk it.

3.  Developers are free to produce whatever they want within given parameters ("Basketball Simulation" or "Action title similar to/competitive with Gears of War")

4.  Developers are an independent team who made something cool, and got bought out to follow up with more of the same with a bigger budget.

[Detrevni|inverteD]

I'm not even going to read a lot of the responses in this thread because it's full of people getting way too flustered over something perennial as video games.

The video game industry is a market. People in the market want to make money.

Some people are good at making games. Some people are bad at making games. It all comes down to opinion.

It is the same for every other medium in the world. Movies, literature, music, art, anything.

There have always been bad video games. There will always be bad video games. There was never a time when video games were fantastic, this is a nostalgic lie. There will always be gems, but most of the time nearly everything is gray area crap that you'll forget after a few months of playing.

Anything beyond that is just opinion vs opinion and unless you are willing to accept that your opinion may be wrong in the hopes of learning something new about your ideals then it's just a whole thread full of unstoppable force vs immovable object.

[Neonivek]

There was never a time when video games were fantastic, this is a nostalgic lie.

Actually after looking into it more.

When videogames were relatively new the only thing companies could do is experiement. This created a lot of great videogames but at the same time the market supported REALLY bad games. You had to take a risk.

The quality of games has gradually been increasing over the years however at the expense of really good games because the method of making successful games with the least possible effort has more or less been discovered.

So basically there are more good games now adays. Less great games and less bad games.

Go back in time and there are less good games. Lots of great games and lots of bad games.

At the same time however many games were only good back then because of what gamers were willing to put up with at the time. Albion for example is a good game with awe inspiring game mechanics that frankly I think is a crime that it never caught on.

However Albion is also very aggrivating to play because of the perspective. It was one of the many top down games with first person areas. As well it can feel rather aimless.

The market doesn't really support innovation now adays anyway because there are always enough new players that recycled trash is new.

It is a LOT like movies. The Golden Age of movies? Sure many of the greatest movies of all time were made in this period. It is also the period where tons and tons and tons of horrible movies were made... more then any other period.

The video game industry is a market. People in the market want to make money

Not exactly.

Developers want to make great games

Producers want to make great money

[Sordid]

Wait, what? Please define what you consider micromanagement then and tell me, how do you imagine a strategy game without it.

Micromanagement. I'm not sure it's even possible to have a strategy game without micromanagement, since I have no interest in and don't play strategy games, so I haven't given it any thought.

Impacting the bottom line is impossible without telling people what the problem is.

There's a difference between telling and ranting.

You stated it as if it happened often and if it was a part of the process.

It is for companies with a good enough name.

Yes, it would. If you ever look at the game design documents and compare it with the state after release, you'll see two different games. Many of desired functionalities doesn't make it to the final version, are deactivated or cut entirely and never touched again.

Of course, that's because it's really really hard to estimate what a game is going to be like on paper. I don't see what that has to do with polish, though. Any other painfully obvious things you'd like to point out?

I'm getting tired of this.

So am I. Last round.

I asked about an example of a company, where the developers actually can decide what kind of game are they going to do.

And I gave you two. Right, moving on...

[SalmonGod]

So basically there are more good games now adays. Less great games and less bad games.

Go back in time and there are less good games. Lots of great games and lots of bad games.

Very much agree with this.  One other reason is as the art form develops, shiny new ideas become less common.

[Sordid]

So basically there are more good games now adays. Less great games and less bad games.

Go back in time and there are less good games. Lots of great games and lots of bad games.

Very much agree with this.  One other reason is as the art form develops, shiny new ideas become less common.

I think that's the exact same reason, actually. Which games are typically considered great? Those that introduced innovations, right? But when somebody makes a similar game, it's just 'good', even if it's done better than the original.

[debvon]

Alright that's it, I now feel inclined to create a new thread titled "My rant on rants on modern video game rants." Don't act surprised, you've forced me to do it.

[Draignean]

Alright that's it, I now feel inclined to create a new thread titled "My rant on rants on modern video game rants." Don't act surprised, you've forced me to do it.

Hit it my good man!