Print

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

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I'm sorry Vodalian, but I'm not going to argue about how they advertise it since I don't care about how they advertise it. If you think they're guilty of false advertising of the degree you say, well, you can take it up with them. I'm pretty sure that's illegal in most places. But just as the commercial reviewers who praised the game focus on the game in front of them, that is how I judge games, on the game in front of me.

I have, in fact, seen videos of them advertising AI, and all I can do is restate what I've already said previously. I don't see anything that is obviously missing from the game. I do see how people could misinterpret it and I do blame that on the advertisements, not the people. I will say that as I recall, they bragged that their AI characters had schedules. They didn't deny it, as you claim. And really, that's about as far as my concern for the advertising goes.

I'm not a marketer or a lawyer, I'm a game programmer. Regardless of what you think of their marketing department, it doesn't reflect on them as bad developers.

quote:Originally posted by Solara:
<STRONG>No, what got to me was the general policy of dumbing things down (leveled enemies to ensure you never get in over your head, generic fantasy setting instead of the jungley awesomeness Cyrodiil was supposed to be, beast races that are basically humans with masks, lame minigames, "Dear Diary: I followed a giant arrow to a cave! I should probably go inside it." etc.) and limiting choices and freedom overall (less guilds, less skills, spells, and weapons, more linear quests, less moral ambiguity, less lore, and the list goes on...)</STRONG>

I agree with many of your criticisms, actually. I know that if they had all the time in the world, they would have fixed a lot of the less list (even if the dumbed down list is mainly bad design choices)... ultimately, it seems they had other priorities. Too bad. I just don't think this makes it inherently a bad game, or Bethesda a bad company, especially lined up next to the tremendous negativity they're subjected to. There are a lot of companies that make mediocre or bad games, and Bethesda makes good games. That doesn't mean they're Valve or Blizzard, but they're still a solid development house, and one of the few that specializes in RPGs.

[Mover#005]

I think spore will be nothing more than a glorified, less girlish viva pinata where every more complex feature will be cut because of "time constraints"... I'm not even reading the hype regarding it. I just don't care.

If it wasn't for bethesda, I would say fallout 3 would be on of those "freeform" game with all the rubbish and fences in convenient places (convenient for lazy designers) But because it's bethesda it will be probably more of a endless grind with gorgeous graphics and all the two dimensional npcs you can't eat. (I have to admit, I didn't like ANY elder scrolls game, but I tried very hard)

I have absolutely no hope left for mainstream games trying anything original, deep or fresh. There's just to much money to loose and too many frat boys and 14 year old ADD patients who will buy the same shit again and again anyways.

[Sowelu]

So Spore is going to be like EVO, plus some watered down RTSes.

That's cool.  I liked EVO.  I like the concept of RTSes except I'm well aware that they are too hard for me.

SimLife was awesome in concept but it did NOT get pulled off.  It was a bunch of fun toys that are fun to play with individually, but...it was like getting a box of Legos and discovering that not all the pieces actually fit together.  About half the scenarios actually worked the way they were supposed to.  None of the in-box ecosystems survived for long, even on the biggest maps.  The most fun feature was the one that spawned a random new species each time one died out, and they died out all the time...  Using that feature and making bulldozers wander around was entertaining.  Still a lot of that game was totally unviable.

Go fire up SimLife again and see it from the 90's perspective it was made in.  That game focused on GRAPHICS!  A lot of the gameplay just didn't end up working, and yes, it was things like GRAPHICS that drove it.  (You think the graphic were bad?  Well, sure, but go into the creature designer and put a kiwi head on a wolf body and tell me that's not entertaining enough to keep grade schoolers amused for HOURS.)  But it still made people *think*, and that's a great thing.

It still failed as a viable simulation.  But if a simulation is what you're after...Ever played SimHEALTH?  What a show.  That game was nothing but graphs and numbers and things. You could even customize the formulas to see what happens if your worldview was more true than the designers'!  Pure simulations just are not that fun.  Spore is advertised as fun.  These things do not coexist.  SimAnt wasn't a simulator either, it was an arcade game that was based on ants.

EVO for the SNES was one of the first games to use that point-based evolution, and it was actually pretty fun.  It was an arcade style game where your abilities constantly changed. It didn't really have strategy but it had RPG-like powergaming abilities, and powergaming is FUN in god games.  You can feel like you're a jealous God playing favorites with your critters, powergaming them to wipe out other things.  Or you can make something silly with three legs and watch it hop around.  Either way, that is worth the price of admission for me.

Fallout 3.  It won't be like the prequels?  Does that mean it won't be full of bugs, and the humor will be toned down a little?  Fallout 2 pissed me off.  A lot.  And God it was so contrived.  Also: Slow and laggy.  Did I mention the humor sucked compared to Fallout 1?  I'm not even a Fallout 1 fanboy (I don't own it) but I liked it a lot better than 2 (which I do own).  And did I mention that it was one of the BUGGIEST GAMES I HAVE PLAYED IN MY LIFE?  Jesus, what IS it about isometric RPGs that makes game designers think they don't ever have to fix bugs?

Fallout 2 should have been delayed another half-year.  To fix bugs, and to make it not so freakishly disjointed.  You could tell that Redding must have been one of the first places they designed for example.  So yeah, Fallout 3 looks fun whoever makes it, and maybe I'll buy it if they still have the same kinds of death animations (SMG + metal armor) as the previous games.

tl;dr:  Both these games are going to be FINE.

[Helmaroc]

I love SimLife. I managed to download a working Mac copy, and just recently the site hosting all the classic Sim games went offline. Crud.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by Sowelu:
<STRONG>Fallout 2... one of the BUGGIEST GAMES I HAVE PLAYED IN MY LIFE</STRONG>

That's actually one of my hopes for Bethesda to please outright improve on the originals; not have endless bugs and incomplete quests and other crap that plagued Fallout 2, and to a lesser extent, Fallout. Plus combat, which, frankly, was not very good in either game. But that's not why you'd play them; you'd come for the setting, the story, stuff like that. If they're good, they'll respect that. If not... well, at least we know it'll be pretty?  

[Sowelu]

Er...yeah...setting and story...not for stuffing ten points in agility and six in strength, a couple Action Boys and a couple of that move perk, and hip-kicking people across the map with the help of power armor...  and not for eyeshotting people at fifty hexes with a gauss rifle, nor for unleashing hell with rapid shot and a Bozar on aliens in the Wanamingo mines and in the tanker...certainly not... and definately not for ripping off H&K G11E's off the Hubologists and then using those to rip off the merchants in San Fran, and for having your car trunk loaded with more ammo than you could ever use in like FORTY DIFFERENT CALIBERS.

*whistles innocently*

...seriously, I was like a squirrel hoarding my ammo.  And I *DID* play them for the combat.  'course I was an X-Com fan so that kind of thing really gets me going.

Now I'm remembering why I liked it so much >.> Only wish I could have had some dramatic scene where I actually get to USE all that ammo in one enormously violent ten minute period.  Getting your tribe back, and passing out firearms and bandoliers...now THAT would have been a Fallout-worthy ending!

*cough*

idonthaveaproblem
iamnotreinstallingthatgame
reallyimeanit

[ February 15, 2008: Message edited by: Sowelu ]

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I loved XCom, but I found Fallout's combat to be... erm... "tolerable." Not that it wasn't fun, but there were annoying idiosyncrasies. SPECIAL system and aimed shots were great (glad Fallout 3 will preserve these for the most part), but other aspects were less so... the irritating panel in the corner comes to mind... superficial, maybe, but arraghrhh...

[Cajoes]

They DID make a XCom3, it's called Apocalypse.

Love the game, but I'll be damned if I can get the sounds to work on this machine.

Wish it was easier to mod thou, the retro sci-fi feel and clayman aliens just are not doing it for me.* But you got to love how things finally collapse properly when turned into "collateral damage."  

*All the sprites in Xcom: Apocalypse were made by photographing clay models at different angles.

[a1s]

quote:Originally posted by Cajoes:
<STRONG>They DID make a XCom3, it's called Apocalypse.</STRONG>

yes they did. and it had the same problem "Oblivion" has- it was the game to end all games*, gutted of all the great stuff so it could be released on time.

By the way I don't get why people hate XCA so much- it was better than wages of war, and noone is hating on that (although it could just be the fan disappointment). Now enforcer- that game was crappy, but not Apocalypse.

____________________________________
*politics, mind control**, tracking devices, and a promise of a proper storyline, that's not just "aliens attack. aliens bad. kill all aliens.".
** ok, maybe they did that, but it was already in XC:EU.

[Sowelu]

Apocalypse is my favorite X-Com because of realtime.

Yeah I know, heresy...  I love the original X-Com as much as anyone...

...but sending three guys in power armor, walking slowly down a corridor shoulder-to-shoulder in realtime, with autocannons loaded with incendiary rounds, set to rapidfire...

THAT IS A THING OF BEAUTY.

Just think of what it could have been like if it was finished, I guess.

[Mover#005]

apocalypse wasn't bad, but suddenly from piece of cake to really, really hard mid-game (or this was just me)

yeah, it was unfinished, if you followed the hype beforehand... the whole hype thing isn't exactly a new thing either, just people usually don't remember it.

[Cajoes]

Oh yes, I did read the hype after finishing the game and was a little dissappinted in all the little things they had left out, tracking devices, net launchers, cells for holding, ahem, "possible suspects". And of course the whole several alien dimensions thing and alternate endings.

But come on, dual wield plasma pistols!

Addendum: Now a true atrocity was the so-called remake games, Aftermath, Aftershock and Afterlight. (Anyone remember the screen saver collection: After dark? If anyone has a link, I'd love to have those screen savers again, flying toasters ftw.) * now if you excuse me, I need to save Earth from the gaping plothole left by the Lovecraftian wannabe and his 400 trillion ton space-ship.

[ February 15, 2008: Message edited by: Cajoes ]

[Cajoes]

Oh, and how many here are gonna try to recreate Kabuto in spore?  

[a1s]

quote:Originally posted by Cajoes:
<STRONG>* now if you excuse me, I need to save Earth from the gaping plothole left by the Lovecraftian wannabe and his 400 trillion ton space-ship.</STRONG>

hm... what game is that?

[Cajoes]

I'm torn between telling and letting you figure it out yourself using the context it was mentioned in, to be quite honest.

[Edit: Ufo 2: Terror from the deep. Same thing as the first game, except everything is under water and buggier.]

[ February 15, 2008: Message edited by: Cajoes ]