Print

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

[Grakelin]

If you played it, you'd understand.

Pathos, this quote is the response to every post I've seen you make since last night. Total War is just a series with similar ideas?

Since you seem to think that Civ4 is the same as Civ2, but with window dressing, please direct me to what you think the 'core game' is. Do you think it's 'build some cities and move guys around a tile-based map'? If so, I would like to direct you to some similar 'problems with the game industry', both from today and throughout history.

Braid: Seriously, it's just Mario with some window-dressing.
Heavy Rain: Seriously, it's just Fahrenheit with some window-dressing.
Chrono Trigger: Yawn, really? Just Final Fantasy I with some window-dressing.
Starcraft: Dune with some window-dressing.
Half-Life: Doom with some window-dressing.

I honestly think you must be trolling. Here are some quotes from you that back up that you are either trolling us or shifting your argument just to be stubborn.

Quote from: MrWiggles on May 04, 2010, 11:14:39 pm

    Um, FPS had more strategy in the older days? How so?  Doom had ten guns because there are ten numeric keys on top. Thats not in depth game design that practicality/laziness.


Because players designed their own strategies, instead of the design of the game forcing them into it. It's the same as various sandbox MMOs. With simple rules, complex strategies can evolve. With extravagant rules, strategies are stifled.

Right, we need simple rules, no complexity. Okay, so you're in a camp that believes that simplicity is the way to go. Makes sense, a valid theory on the way games should run. You're a very respectable person, and you're pleasant to talk to as a result.

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.

So, this should be a good thing, shouldn't it? The fact that the rules aren't changing drastically? Going by the theory you posited before. Well, this could go either way, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: Pathos on Today at 02:49:06 am

    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

Oooh, Shades has you here. You asked for a bunch of games as complex as HoMM or LoM, and he supplied it to you, even going so far as to stay within the genre! You have to admit, that's pretty good.

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.

What.

"Uh the setting is different in some of those so it changes everything sorry no dice."

Do you understand that Neverwinter Nights was developed by Bioware in 2002? It's not quite hearkening back to the classic age of video gaming. Indeed, some quick research reveals (in a heartbeat) that Bioware is responsible for almost every great RPG to have been developed in the Western Hemisphere. Those that Bioware didn't develop were developed by the people who worked on Fallout 1 & 2 and later went on to form Troika. Why don't I just throw out a

Fallout 2: Just Fallout 1 with window-dressing.
Arcanum: Just Fallout 2 with window-dressing.

while we're in this mix.

Please try to maintain continuity in your own arguments, Pathos. Right now, you're just blustering madly as everybody else comes forward with stronger and stronger points. I could quote even more places wherein you contradict yourself, but I simply lack the time and energy to do so. Try to develop a solid theory about how you want games to run before you critique it endlessly. Especially if you're going to defend your point on this forum over multiple threads (I'm realizing that there is already a thread about how bad the industry is getting, where I have this same conversation. I'm beginning to think it was you who started that one, too).

[Neonivek]

Another problem is that for the most part the customers of review sites and magazines are rather unfair when it comes to those reviews.

Giving a game a higher review then it deserves is relatively harmless

Giving a game a lower review then what the audiance thinks it deserves is catastrophic!

And that number can be as small as .5... People complained when Littlebigplanet on one site got a 9 instead of a 9.5

[Pathos]

Pathos, this quote is the response to every post I've seen you make since last night. Total War is just a series with similar ideas?

Since you seem to think that Civ4 is the same as Civ2, but with window dressing, please direct me to what you think the 'core game' is. Do you think it's 'build some cities and move guys around a tile-based map'?

What.

"Uh the setting is different in some of those so it changes everything sorry no dice."

The very theme and basis of the mechanics changes drastically inbetween each Total War game, so much so even the menu controls (something that seems to be one of the few standardised things within a single genre, nevermind series) are completely different. This is, obviously, due to the changes in the setting in the timeline. Compare the gameplay of Rome Total War with that of Empire Total War.

The same with LoM / Space 4X games. There's a CONSIDERABLE disparity in gameplay mechanics that renders them nigh-on uncomparable. A setting change (along with appropriate mechanics, of course) changes the game completely. Certain mods for Civ4 did it, and they were using almost exactly the same mechanics. See Fall From Heaven 2, Final Frontier, even Rhye's and Fall of Civilization probably fits. Fall From Heaven 2 is more of a sequel to LoM than a mod of Civ4.

The Civilization games follow the same pattern, the same mechanics system, the same thematic design etc etc. Hence why they're pretty much the same game with a few more (unnecessary) features and prettier graphics. If you're really not getting this (really, you're just tugging my leg, right?) then you have no idea how game mechanics fit together.

I would like to direct you to some similar 'problems with the game industry', both from today and throughout history

Braid: Seriously, it's just Mario with some window-dressing.
Heavy Rain: Seriously, it's just Fahrenheit with some window-dressing.
Chrono Trigger: Yawn, really? Just Final Fantasy I with some window-dressing.
Starcraft: Dune with some window-dressing.
Half-Life: Doom with some window-dressing.

Except, again, there were considerable mechanics changes. It's like me claiming WoW is Asheron's Call with some window-dressing. They are within the same genre, they have similar controls and interface, but the MECHANICS of the game are completely different.

I honestly think you must be trolling. Here are some quotes from you that back up that you are either trolling us or shifting your argument just to be stubborn.

Right, we need simple rules, no complexity. Okay, so you're in a camp that believes that simplicity is the way to go. Makes sense, a valid theory on the way games should run. You're a very respectable person, and you're pleasant to talk to as a result.

Simplicity is something to be admired in FPSes, as the complexity comes from multiplayer interaction and clever thought games against your opponent, compared with...

So, this should be a good thing, shouldn't it? The fact that the rules aren't changing drastically? Going by the theory you posited before. Well, this could go either way, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Simplicity is not necessarily a good thing in RPGs, as the players is generally playing against the computer, which means difficult and complex mechanics are necessary. I don't believe I mentioned anything about rules not changing drastically being a good thing within a series.

As an example of an unnecessary and useful feature. An unnecessary (and therefore cluttering) feature is poffin making in Pokémon, (it's not filling any sort of void as far as I can tell, as you could use Pokéblocks to raise your Pokémon's stats) it was merely added as window dressing to allow it to be marketed and used as a way to pretend the game has more features. A USEFUL feature would be a complete cooking system that has various bonuses and negatives and uses the aforementioned Pokéberries / Pokéblocks to make Poffins, Bread, Cakes etc.

Do you understand that Neverwinter Nights was developed by Bioware in 2002? It's not quite hearkening back to the classic age of video gaming. Indeed, some quick research reveals (in a heartbeat) that Bioware is responsible for almost every great RPG to have been developed in the Western Hemisphere. Those that Bioware didn't develop were developed by the people who worked on Fallout 1 & 2 and later went on to form Troika.

Neverwinter Nights would count for most people as a classic age video game, along with Morrowind (made in 2002) and Warcraft 3 (made in 2002, again). All three of those mark the end of an era of complexity in video games, as subsequent titles in a similar genre to those have been noticeably lacking since.

And, yes, I do realise that it was made by Bioware. Have you considered that's why I lament their fall? Also, you seem to be forgetting the Ultima series, the Wizardry series, etc.

Why don't I just throw out a

Fallout 2: Just Fallout 1 with window-dressing.
Arcanum: Just Fallout 2 with window-dressing.

while we're in this mix.

Well, I'm not saying anything about the Fallout 2 one, because it was MAINLY a theme change with a few mechanics upgrades / changes along with a much bigger diversity and usefulness of skills. Fallout 2 is the example of a sequel done right, in my opinion.

Arcanum, however, is considerably different to Fallout 2 (hence why you're using it, I'd guess, it's not very nice to try and catch people out on technicalities ) in theme, mechanics and pretty much everything except graphics. (The art style was pretty similar.) It's similar to how different Starcraft and Warcraft 3 are. They're as far as you can get to being different whilst being in the same genre.

Please try to maintain continuity in your own arguments, Pathos. Right now, you're just blustering madly as everybody else comes forward with stronger and stronger points. I could quote even more places wherein you contradict yourself, but I simply lack the time and energy to do so. Try to develop a solid theory about how you want games to run before you critique it endlessly. Especially if you're going to defend your point on this forum over multiple threads (I'm realizing that there is already a thread about how bad the industry is getting, where I have this same conversation. I'm beginning to think it was you who started that one, too).

I do apologise, but you seem to be incapable of realising that people may want different feature styles in different genres. Would you want your expensive restaurant to be prepared similarly to your McDonalds? I doubt it. Would you claim that people are contradicting themselves if they say they wanted them prepared and presented differently? You'd have to be a fool to do so. And, yet, you claim it about what I am saying about different genres? Think about it.

I've not seen this thread, please do link it.

Oh, and a question for you: Why the rabid defence of modern games?

[Shadowgandor]

Chrono Trigger: Yawn, really? Just Final Fantasy I with some window-dressing.

Alright, this right here is bullcrap. Final Fantasy I can in no way compare to Chrono Trigger. The story was awesome, multiple endings, fight system might be the same as FF but I don't think it had the active battle gauger thing, Time Travelling was an awesome feature that allowed for some cool things to happen.
I haven't really read the discussion going on around here but saying Chrono Trigger is just Final Fantasy I with some window-dressing is the same as saying Pacman is nothing more then Pong with some window-dressing.

[Shadowlord]

What was that which just flew right over Shadowgandor's head?

Also, how about the both of you stop trolling each other?

(Also, the game mechanics in the different civ games are most certainly not identical, so your argument doesn't really hold water, Pathos.)

[DJ]

I'd say the reviewer standards *are* dropping. Yes, there was as much crap in Ye Good Old Days as there is now. Yes, there are good games these days (a bit less than before, but that's just my opinion). But the point is that back then the average score was 7, and today it's 9. A game that gets a 7 these days is downright unplayable, whereas before it was something that could keep you entertained for a week or two.

[Virex]

Chrono Trigger: Yawn, really? Just Final Fantasy I with some window-dressing.

Alright, this right here is bullcrap. Final Fantasy I can in no way compare to Chrono Trigger. The story was awesome, multiple endings, fight system might be the same as FF but I don't think it had the active battle gauger thing, Time Travelling was an awesome feature that allowed for some cool things to happen.
I haven't really read the discussion going on around here but saying Chrono Trigger is just Final Fantasy I with some window-dressing is the same as saying Pacman is nothing more then Pong with some window-dressing.

FF3 had all that, save for the multiple endings and time travle, though it was more open ended in the mid game and the friggin world got destroyed halfway trough (sounds familiar?). So yes, it IS an FF title with different window dressing

[nenjin]

I tend to think of reviewer scores as bell curves. Which means reviewer scores are only really telling at the extremes. Which is why I ignore their scores. (I read Metascores if I'm really dying to know how the press received it.) I get a much clearer picture from actually reading the reviews; they tell me most of what I need to know to buy a game.

Scores are an ok place to start, but you really need to get into specifics when reviewing a game. Fort Zombie did terribly, and I'm guessing 99% of that was the performance. Yet as a game, the systems are awesome, the implementation is awesome...had I just run on the "5" or whatever people gave it, I never would have bothered to look.

[fenrif]

I tend to think of reviewer scores as bell curves. Which means reviewer scores are only really telling at the extremes. Which is why I ignore their scores. (I read Metascores if I'm really dying to know how the press received it.) I get a much clearer picture from actually reading the reviews; they tell me most of what I need to know to buy a game.

Scores are an ok place to start, but you really need to get into specifics when reviewing a game. Fort Zombie did terribly, and I'm guessing 99% of that was the performance. Yet as a game, the systems are awesome, the implementation is awesome...had I just run on the "5" or whatever people gave it, I never would have bothered to look.

When fort zombie was released it was full of gamebreaking bugs, chugged at like 5 fps, and was just generally terribly buggy. I know they've fixed many of those issues, but at release I'd have given it a 2 or a 3.

[nenjin]

That's purely a performance issue though. And yes, scores are supposed to capture a game's overall playability, from fun to performance....but its score didn't reflect the wealth of awesome that was there. It just shotgunned the game for performance.

The game has also been patched quite a bit now, but that doesn't matter to reviewers for the most part. They're all about the big sell, right? Unless you're a AAA title that has effectively purchased their attention, so they'll come back and say "it's patched, much better now", you're screwed.

Here's a Gamespy article. Pay attention to #2 in that list. It's ironic on a lot of levels. It avoids addressing the role reviewers play in all this, but it nails how gamers behave. We end up as free marketing for many of these games, and this thread is a great example of it. We've all defended titles trying to convince others they're worth playing.

That really shouldn't be the role of the consumer. That should be the role of the reviewers. But reviewers don't do that. They're not trying to convince us they're worth playing, they're trying to convince us they're worth paying for. That's their primary mission, and once gamers have that information, they tend to ignore the rest of the review. But even Gamespy does a decent job of going beyond that to review games in a way that is more useful, like fan-written reviews. The public has become so jaded though, they just focus on the bullet points and the score.

I much prefer when scores are broken out individually. Performance, visuals, game play, audio and anything else that doesn't fit into those. That way you can give a 10 for game play, a 3 for performance, and you can average out a slightly more realistic score. Reviewers don't bother to do that anymore, and if they do, they don't show you the math.

[Soulwynd]

I think this explains my feelings towards most reviewers pretty well:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1632-Just-Cause-2

[Pathos]

Here's a Gamespy article. Pay attention to #2 in that list. It's ironic on a lot of levels. It avoids addressing the role reviewers play in all this, but it nails how gamers behave. We end up as free marketing for many of these games, and this thread is a great example of it. We've all defended titles trying to convince others they're worth playing.

That's exactly why I avoid supporting (although I'll give a neutral opinion of a game, I won't big it up) upcoming / recently released titles. I will, however, support older, unsupported and free niche games.

[axus]

Wow, I'd forgotten about Computer Gaming World and how useful it was for me as a video gaming teenager.  I would never have bought a game called "X-Com: UFO Defense" without their review.

This has been going on for quite a few years. Basically, reviews come out before the game. That right there is reason to be highly suspicious. In order to get the game before release, you have to give good reviews. I'm no businessman, but it seems to me that there should be a niche for a review site that can wait for a game's release and give honest reviews. Computer Gaming World used to be like that many years ago. They would not hesitate to give a bad review, in fact, most of the reviews were negative. Back in the day it was an extremely useful magazine.

[fenrif]

That's purely a performance issue though. And yes, scores are supposed to capture a game's overall playability, from fun to performance....but its score didn't reflect the wealth of awesome that was there. It just shotgunned the game for performance.

The game has also been patched quite a bit now, but that doesn't matter to reviewers for the most part. They're all about the big sell, right? Unless you're a AAA title that has effectively purchased their attention, so they'll come back and say "it's patched, much better now", you're screwed.

Here's a Gamespy article. Pay attention to #2 in that list. It's ironic on a lot of levels. It avoids addressing the role reviewers play in all this, but it nails how gamers behave. We end up as free marketing for many of these games, and this thread is a great example of it. We've all defended titles trying to convince others they're worth playing.

That really shouldn't be the role of the consumer. That should be the role of the reviewers. But reviewers don't do that. They're not trying to convince us they're worth playing, they're trying to convince us they're worth paying for. That's their primary mission, and once gamers have that information, they tend to ignore the rest of the review. But even Gamespy does a decent job of going beyond that to review games in a way that is more useful, like fan-written reviews. The public has become so jaded though, they just focus on the bullet points and the score.

I much prefer when scores are broken out individually. Performance, visuals, game play, audio and anything else that doesn't fit into those. That way you can give a 10 for game play, a 3 for performance, and you can average out a slightly more realistic score. Reviewers don't bother to do that anymore, and if they do, they don't show you the math.

I do think it should be re-reviewed after they fixed the problems, but at release I wouldn't have reccomended fort zombie to anyone, either as something to buy or something to play. Yeah technical issues are seperate from gameplay and fun, but when they prevent you from enjoying the game at all it becomes the most important thing. You can't blame the reviewers because the fort zombie people released a game that was completely unready for sale.

I wouldn't reccomend a DVD that only played a slideshow of the film, or a CD with corrupt audio tracks. No matter how good the content would be if it worked.

I do agree with you about reviews adressing different parts of the game experience though. I still prefer no-number review systems (comparisons to other games work better I think). Especially since I feel a lot of reviews hold graphics up as some awesome standard of how fun a game is to play.

[Zaranthan]

I do think it should be re-reviewed after they fixed the problems, but at release I wouldn't have reccomended fort zombie to anyone, either as something to buy or something to play. Yeah technical issues are seperate from gameplay and fun, but when they prevent you from enjoying the game at all it becomes the most important thing. You can't blame the reviewers because the fort zombie people released a game that was completely unready for sale.

I wouldn't re-review a game that did that. If your game is a beta, call it a beta. Don't charge me ten bucks for it and then tell me "updates are forthcoming." If the game's not complete, DON'T RELEASE IT. If you do, you can expect your "even-handed review" when it comes up on Abandonia, when the game's "history" becomes relevant.

I wouldn't reccomend a DVD that only played a slideshow of the film, or a CD with corrupt audio tracks. No matter how good the content would be if it worked.

I do agree with you about reviews adressing different parts of the game experience though. I still prefer no-number review systems (comparisons to other games work better I think). Especially since I feel a lot of reviews hold graphics up as some awesome standard of how fun a game is to play.

For a sadly growing portion of the market, graphics ARE #1. All the football-heads out there won't give a game ten seconds unless it looks like a movie. My biggest issue with the weighting given to graphics is that the reviewers judge the game based on technical details like poly counts and "realistic" effects like shadows/lighting and other texture tricks while turning a blind eye (pun totally intended) to silly things like how well the images convey information to the player or whether you can tell the difference between a guy with a knife and a robot with a machine gun.

More games should take a page from games like TF2 and Starcraft (to pick easy demonstrations) and design their graphics around giving the player a window into the game rather than merely looking pretty.