Print

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

[olemars]

There are still good games released, but in most cases they're just refinement of tried and true concepts. What are the games getting hype currently? Diablo 3, Red Alert 3, Fallout 3, Starcraft 2 and so on. Of course, there's nothing wrong with using a working formula (in some cases it would have been better if they had stuck closer to it), but for me, personally, there is a certain innovative element that's missing in new games.

Of course, there were plenty of horrible abominations or plain mediocrities released back in the 80/90's as well, but that was the period when most(all?) of the current game genres appeared.

I still spend more time playing old classics (or true remakes thereof) than recent games. I'll freely admit to being a hopeless nostalgic though.

Actually yeah, but its very hard to find unique and decent games nowadays. Basically I plan to buy games in the future, but I am pretty sure, that none of those will be as good as DF [gameplay wise], maybe only the upcoming "MoM clone" by Stardock or the Blood Bowl game.
As for the games what you have mentioned...I dont know. Those will be very popular for sure, but somehow I dont care about them too much. Diablo is just a mindless hack and slash game, Fallout 3 looks like ok, but I surely wont enjoy it as much as the old Fallout games, since the game will be very different [I suppose theyve changed everything like this, because they would like to sell lot of copies, and an old FO style game wouldnt sell very good],
Starcraft 2 will be good for sure, but its just an ordinary strategy game, and the same is true about Red Alert 3.

The point I was trying to make was that the "big" games coming out are mostly sequels and rehashes, and bring forward nothing that could be considered new and exciting. So I think we're pretty much in agreement.

...I would suggest that Civilization and Ultima were really not very good games. Sure, I've played them extensively, enjoyed them, but they were not very well made.

Civilization was neat because it was ground breaking at the time

That's the whole point.  They were groundbreaking at the time, which was the time it actually mattered. Of course they don't stand to comparison now, after the genres they broke ground for have been refined and improved for over a decade. And back then hardware and Os's were limited and even less standardized than today, development tools were crap and budgets nonexistent. They had lots of imagination though.

The sentiment you typed up sort of reminds me of this.

[Moneo]

I just wanted to point out that it should not be surprising that developers want to make games that sell well or that pander to the masses. Logically speaking, these are the games that most people want to play, and therefore one shouldn't complain about developers lacking creativity or innovation, but rather that the masses aren't interested in that. Developers are making games that will please the most people.

Who thinks this stuff up? It's totally random, unintuitive, doesn't make sense, isn't much fun to play, and it's only the fact that these games were the first in their genres that they did so well. We may have emotional attachment to them because they were so novel at the time...but really, if you were to slap pretty graphics on games like these, the gameplay and design aren't any better than many of the modern trash games that are being produced now.

I completely agree with you about Ultima 3, I could never get in to it. Since my first Ultima experience was with Serpent Isle, I wasn't able to enjoy 1-3. 4 onwards were good (not counting 8 or 9, of course). However, Serpent Isle will always be my favourite (nostalgia again).

Also, I don't see why people think that there are no original modern games. Take Spore for example, I'm sure its not everybody's cup of tea but I don't see how it isn't creative, innovative or novel. You may not like the game, but it is original.

[Nesoo]

The sentiment you typed up sort of reminds me of this.

Fixed that link for ya.

Also, warn people when you link to TV Tropes, please? It's worse than wikipedia ^{(warning: link to XKCD)}.

[FunnyMan]

TV Tropes is so bad, they've got an article about that phenomenon: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArchiveBinge

[olemars]

The sentiment you typed up sort of reminds me of this.

Fixed that link for ya.

Thanks.

Also, warn people when you link to TV Tropes, please? It's worse than wikipedia ^{(warning: link to XKCD)}.

I just don't want to suffer alone...

[Dakej]

I learned about DF about a month before Spore came out. Now that Spore is out, I'm sticking with DF.

[SirPenguin]

I don't know if I'd say it's better than those games. Or really better than any game. It's a very unique game that scratches a very unique itch. It isn't for everyone, but those it IS for are quite glad they found it.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I liked Diablo :C

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Personally, I don't think that Ultima belongs there, judging from my experiences with Ultima III, V, and VI. They were regular RPGs and thus a completely different genre (adventure mode of DF is a roguelike which is definitely a different class of RPG).

In my book, the only game getting closest to fortress mode (sorry, not an ardent adventure mode player) would be SimCity. Actually, when you look at the original SimCity, it had an exploratory spirit to it very similar to DF.

However, the original SimCity was limited by the computers of that time, and the later versions have seemingly suffered from mainstreaming. While they did improve, only little of the improvements seemed to be in the vein of the original design goal while a lot of improvement seemed to focus on graphics and additional buildings.

SimCity 4 Deluxe comes closest to DF among the SimCity games I know, but it still lacks a lot of the complexity of DF. Had the new features of SimCity Societies been added to the basic gameplay of SimCity 4 Deluxe, the result would have been very close to DF in complexity and quality, but unfortunately, SimCity Societies is more of a sequel to CityLife rather than SimCity and lacks virtually all the interesting features of basic gameplay which had been there all along.

All other games in a similar construction vein I know (A4, Transport Tycoon, SimuTrans) have even much less detail than DF.

But as people pointed out, in the end, it is just one genre (or mix of genres) that DF dominates, and it will never cause me to doubt 勇者じゃないモン!, which I consider one of the funniest freeware RPG parodies I ever played and should really play again one of these days.

Deathworks

[Tormy]

Deathworks, with all my respect, I dont think that SimCity is anything like DF actually...

[LegacyCWAL]

I've never played the original Civilization or Ultima, so I have no grounds for comment on them.  X-Com, on the other hand...

DF is no match for X-Com.  Period.  Don't get me wrong, DF is a great game, but X-Com is one of the best ever.  It's easily a match for all-time greats like StarCraft, System Shock, and Star Control 2, and not much from any genre can compete with the likes of those.

[Creamcorn]

Dwarf fortress is better than masturbation.

That's debatable, because I bet playing DF 50 times a month won't lower your chances of certain types of cancer.

DF lowers your chances of skin cancer from sunlight exposure.

Good one.

As for the question, it is hard to say, but I'm sure that if we all played a 28% complete of all these games in thar here list, DF would probably or definetly win. Just to put this into perspective. Of course don't go saying this stuff right now, I love this game, and all, but don't jinx it!

Or as most would say. "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" Which I honestly don't know what that means, but I'm sure it applys to this situation. :\

Also, DF cat fight.

[Mephansteras]

Well, most of these opinions are just that, opinions. It all depends on what you like and what you want out of a game. Personally, I enjoy DF more then X-com. X-com is awesome, but I don't find it to be a better game overall. Better in some areas, sure. But then again, DF isn't DONE yet, and X-com is. And I'm still waiting for a truly good remake of it.

I think DF is quite a bit like SimCity at least in Fortress mode, from the perspective that both are creation games. The goal in SimCity is as open-ended as the goal in DF. Want a small city/fortress that focuses on farming, go for it. Want a huge Trade city, go for it. Now, I think DF goes beyond what was ever possible in Sim City but it's also both smaller and grander in scope. Smaller, in that you don't end up with a fortress of millions of dwarves. Grander, in that it seeks to go all the way from the individual to the kingdom level in simulation. SimCity never really tried any of that, although later versions incorporated small segments of that into it.

[LegacyCWAL]

Does TftD count as a remake?

And he said DF, not DF as it someday will be.  I'll compare DF's finished version with other games when that finished version arrives, and not a moment sooner.

[Tormy]

Does TftD count as a remake?

And he said DF, not DF as it someday will be.  I'll compare DF's finished version with other games when that finished version arrives, and not a moment sooner.

Well, when will be DF finished? Perhaps we will have v1.0 in 4-6 years? Perhaps there will be sorta similar games by that time. Who knows..
One thing is for sure, DF is an unique gem. Ive already spent more time playing with DF than with any other "big commercial games". [Ive only spent more time on WoW, but thats a MMORPG] That IS something I guess. 
Oh and also...v1.0 will be so complex, diverse and awesome, that we probably won't even need to buy any other games.