Print

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

[Pathos]

SimCity Societies was designed for a different demographic and a different playstyle, just like SimTown--they were designed to be simpler games for a younger audience.  Don't start comparing those with SimCity, they had different intentions going in.  Societies is very similar to NationStates, you're not supposed to take it seriously but hey, some people play it because they think it's fun.  And it's very nice that you "heard" that SC4 was very minor changes, but that's total bull.  It's some pretty goddamn massive upgrades...well, about as big as you can get while staying within the same genre.  They're adding complexity while keeping loyal to the expectations of their fans.  What else do you want them to do?

Changes such as?

And my point is that it's only "modern" games that have a long-term series (Civilization, Madden NFL, FIFA, Microsoft Flight Sim, SimCity, all examples you've given as complex) have any sort of complexity. The complexity is not added through the series, it is there from the very start. On your Civ4 example, all those features are unnecessary and pretty much worthless. They're window dressing to the core mechanics that've been around since the very beginning of the series. Show me a new game (of a well known development studio and a new series) that has complexity reaching that of, say, Lords of Magic.

Edit:  And just as Grakelin ninja'd me above, the quality and complexity of sports games has nothing to do with how often they're released.  Just like you had to draw your own maps in old, old RPGs, I found myself taking elaborate paper notes on the strengths and weaknesses of my team and how I wanted to shore them up with recruits.  And, gosh darn it, I enjoyed myself--even though there were options to handle that stuff automatically.

The point is that complexity is something that is not being added to the former base model. It's just a steady gain of unnecessary features. Another example would be the Pokémon games, which gained - in the latest one - the ability to make bread and that was about it. Oh, and a bunch of other Pokémon.

[Shades]

Show me a new game (of a well known development studio and a new series) that has complexity reaching that of, say, Lords of Magic.

Comparing classic games again, always a tricky one. However since then off the top of my head, ignoring the fact immersion studios is hardly well know (lets face it are any developers other than maybe ID or Blizzard well known?) and keeping solely in the genre:

Galactic Civilizations - 2003
Sword of the Stars - 2006
American Civil War - 2007
Lost Empire - 2007
Sins of a Solar Empire - 2008
King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame - 2009

I'm not going to claim these are all as good, but certainly similar levels of complexity. This is of course ignoring the many squeals to existing games which half the time are made by completely different people and rebuild from the ground up, only keeping the name for IP reasons.

And of course not to mention the many games of different genres equality as complex, and all the indie games such as dwarf fortress that in some cases far exceed the level of complexity.

How many new series can you name that came _before_ lords of magic and were as complex?

Oh and you ignored the fact lords of magic is not strictly the first in it's series either.

[Pathos]

Galactic Civilizations - 2003
Sword of the Stars - 2006
American Civil War - 2007
Lost Empire - 2007
Sins of a Solar Empire - 2008
King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame - 2009

I really shouldn't have implied there are no games as complex, but they are definitely very rare. 4 of these aren't really in the genre I think (they're space 4X games, not fantasy, it's sort of different). And that American Civil War game IS a turn-based strategy, but purely combat it seems. Not a clue about the King Arthur game. Still, over 6 years, you can only give six (similar genre) games that're anywhere near as complex as Lords of Magic? I don't know about you, but that seems like a tiny amount. Lords of Magic was probably a poor example (due to the genre itself requiring complexity), try NWN or Baldur's Gate, there'll be far fewer games there.

And of course not to mention the many games of different genres equality as complex, and all the indie games such as dwarf fortress that in some cases far exceed the level of complexity.

There's a reason I didn't include indie games, and why I didn't give Dwarf Fortress as an example of a complex game. =p

How many new series can you name that came _before_ lords of magic and were as complex?

Oh and you ignored the fact lords of magic is not strictly the first in it's series either.

Lords of the Realm, Heroes of Might and Magic, Master of Magic, Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance, Sierra's Caesar series, quite a few 4X games, Colonization, Civilization etc etc.

[Shades]

Lords of the Realm, Heroes of Might and Magic, Master of Magic, Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance, Sierra's Caesar series, quite a few 4X games, Colonization, Civilization etc etc.

Being that Lord of the realm is technically the same series as lord of magic you have managed to name the same number of series for a much longer period of time. One (two if you count colonization) of which is a series still being developed and improved.

And that is just that one genre, one which makes up a much smaller percentage of modern games (which is a shame I think but oh well)
Feel free to name an FPS like that has anywhere near the depth of such ones as Deux Ex or Half-life but made before.

[Pathos]

Being that Lord of the realm is technically the same series as lord of magic you have managed to name the same number of series for a much longer period of time. One (two if you count colonization) of which is a series still being developed and improved.

Not really. Lords of the Realm and Lords of Magic (whilst having similar names, being based around similar concept and coming from the same developer) are completely different games, due to a great deal of mechanical differences such as battles being real-time (like Total War) in Lords of the Realm and them not being so in Lords of Magic.

[Shades]

Not really. Lords of the Realm and Lords of Magic (whilst having similar names, being based around similar concept and coming from the same developer) are completely different games, due to a great deal of mechanical differences such as battles being real-time (like Total War) in Lords of the Realm and them not being so in Lords of Magic.

Not much more difference than some series (again Total War but in the opposite direction) has between iterations. Also the game was considered by the developers to be the next in the series.

[Pathos]

Not much more difference than some series (again Total War but in the opposite direction) has between iterations. Also the game was considered by the developers to be the next in the series.

Pfft, the developers were miles off. It was thematically, mechanically and overtly different. If you played it, you'd understand.

The Total War games don't REALLY count as a series, other than a collection of loosely binding ideas. You could've probably counted them in your complex games thingy.

[Shades]

The Total War games don't REALLY count as a series, other than a collection of loosely binding ideas. You could've probably counted them in your complex games thingy.

I should have anyway, seem shogun was out 2000 I thought it was earlier than that
In which case that is another four games of similar complexity (I don't think shogun was it was wonderful but limited and discounting med2 as a sequel)

And this still doesn't change the fact you've pick one game, arguably my favourite and certainly in most peoples top X games of all time to prove your point.

Lets try with another title.

Find me a modern game worse than ET

[Pathos]

Find me a modern game worse than ET

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing

[Shades]

Find me a modern game worse than ET

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing

Heh I was thinking that as I wrote it. ET is still arguably worse though.

Going back to the discussion at hand the general trend of games is clearly better, the average game now, 10 years ago and 20 years ago is still terrible. The classic games are always classics and hard to say much about.

The problem with modern games, I feel, is more than the best games are often the ones without the funding. Compare something like Braid or World of Goo with any game you like, both of these are clearly modern and wonderful.

[Pathos]

Heh I was thinking that as I wrote it. ET is still arguably worse though.

Going back to the discussion at hand the general trend of games is clearly better, the average game now, 10 years ago and 20 years ago is still terrible. The classic games are always classics and hard to say much about.

The problem with modern games, I feel, is more than the best games are often the ones without the funding. Compare something like Braid or World of Goo with any game you like, both of these are clearly modern and wonderful.

I don't know, it depends whether ET set out to be that terrible. It's fairly obvious Big Rigs didn't.

Considering the classics are the main influence on the gaming industry, I'd say they're the things we should be comparing to, especially when games are claimed to be their spiritual successors.

And I can drink to that, it's sad how the best games are made by singular developers with no cash other than donations. It's also pretty damn odd.

[Shades]

Considering the classics are the main influence on the gaming industry, I'd say they're the things we should be comparing to, especially when games are claimed to be their spiritual successors.

Maybe we should list all the classics then, although It's hard to say what will be a classic when it's only a year or two old. Almost against the definition of one really

And I can drink to that, it's sad how the best games are made by singular developers with no cash other than donations. It's also pretty damn odd.

It's annoying yes, I can understand why though. There just isn't enough safe money it in. Sure you can make a new game and it'll take off and be the next GTA3, Halo or Modern Warfare but those are the exceptions not the rule, much safer to spend a lot less and rehash a game tweaking it slightly and release getting similar sales to before and a guaranteed profit. (Although if the people that claimed this actually checked the numbers they would notice they make stupid losses with this method anyway but meh, I'm not the one holding the purse strings so its hard to do much about it)

[Tilla]

I can end this 'new games can't be complex' thing in one word: ArmA

[Virtz]

I can end this 'new games can't be complex' thing in one word: ArmA

I tried playing ArmA2 with 2 friends on coop. We could tell stories about the bugs and general retardation that followed. It was Battlecruiser 3000 level bugged. Possibly worse, but I've never played a scenario in Battlecruiser 3000, so I don't know if cutscenes were able to teleport players around and just stop mid-way.

And we did get original copies, it wasn't the DRM punishing us (or at least it shouldn't have). ArmA's a bad example of how to do complexity today compared to its predecessor, OFP.

[Soulwynd]

I can end this 'new games can't be complex' thing in one word: ArmA

If you think ArmA is complex, you have never played SEAL Team.