Print

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

[Shades]

Sorry. If it's too big and popular, and I don't personally like it, my "Arrr! Cultural diversity is being lost!" kicks in and I have to hate it.

I HATE BLIZZARD! Their games are boring! >:O

Why hate someone for making dull games? unless they are forcing you to play them as well?

If you hated a developer for stupid security measures on a game you'd otherwise want to play, for making it not run on whatever your OS/hardware of choice is (and it was every likely to), for refusing to sell to your country or just for treating their staff like slaves then fine. But just for making a dull game seems pointless.

Do you hate people that don't make games too? Cause they don't make fun games either.

[TaintedMustard]

Sorry. If it's too big and popular, and I don't personally like it, my "Arrr! Cultural diversity is being lost!" kicks in and I have to hate it.

You mean if you don't personally like something, you have to invent another reason to dislike it so you can feel rebellious and thoughtful?

Go read a book. Jeez.

[Shrugging Khan]

Nope. The formula is

Code: [Select]

(lack of innovation)*(popularity)*(personal disinterest)=How much I hate it
The more popular a boring game is, the more it lowers the bar for game development culture as a whole, the more I have reason to dislike it.

[TaintedMustard]

Nope. The formula is

Code: [Select]

(lack of innovation)*(popularity)*(personal disinterest)=How much I hate it
The more popular a boring game is, the more it lowers the bar for game development culture as a whole, the more I have reason to dislike it.

Boring in your opinion. Everything to do with how much you think a game is "lowering the bar" has to do with your personal taste in games. I stand by what I said.

[Exponent]

I wonder if something like Chess, Go, or Risk should be considered boring.  After all, the game mechanics are incredibly simple.

Depth does not always need to come from complexity, and in my opinion, the best type of depth is the kind that emerges from simple mechanics.

Now it's still debatable whether or not a game like Starcraft has a lot of depth after having its gameplay mechanics trimmed down and polished relative to what could be (20 races, 100 unit types each, each unit type having on average 10 special abilities, random personalities for each unit, fully physics-enabled maps with deformable terrain and liquid flows, any other crazy things you can think of).  Nonetheless, I think that it should be clear that Starcraft's lack of complexity is not anywhere close to sufficient grounds to claim that it lacks depth.

Blizzard is very skilled at maintaining a relatively narrow and strict focus with their games (can't speak about WoW, haven't played it), which I consider to be a very good thing, not a hindrance, as this narrow focus can help them choose and tweak the game mechanics that lead to a natural emergence of depth, without getting buried under an avalanche of complexity that refuses to cooperate with any tweaking and balancing.  Getting complex mechanics to produce interesting results can actually be something of a nightmare, in my experience.

[nbonaparte]

Depth does not always need to come from complexity, and in my opinion, the best type of depth is the kind that emerges from simple mechanics.

then what the hell are you doing here?

[Noble Digger]

I tried to go back to Diablo 1 recently and got super super annoyed with being unable to run. I also remembered how annoying it was to carry Reading Glasses (playing a Warrior) so I could read more spellbooks than my non-int gear would allow.

[nophilip]

Now it's still debatable whether or not a game like Starcraft has a lot of depth after having its gameplay mechanics trimmed down and polished relative to what could be (20 races, 100 unit types each, each unit type having on average 10 special abilities, random personalities for each unit, fully physics-enabled maps with deformable terrain and liquid flows, any other crazy things you can think of).  Nonetheless, I think that it should be clear that Starcraft's lack of complexity is not anywhere close to sufficient grounds to claim that it lacks depth.

The reason the original StarCraft has been so popular over the past 12 years is that it is arguably the most perfectly balanced RTS out there. If you were to expand an RTS game to 20 races with 100 units each, it would be impossible to balance well. One or more of the races/ units would inevitably be way more powerful than the others. This is also how fighting games work. Games with fewer characters (like Street Fighter) tend to be far more balanced, whereas games with character explosions (Marvel Vs. Capcom 2) end up with semi-unfair, overpowered heroes like Iron Man and Cable.

Also, for all the Blizzard haters, go play The Lost Vikings on SNES and come back with a better understanding of awesome.

[Levi]

I wonder if something like Chess, Go, or Risk should be considered boring.  After all, the game mechanics are incredibly simple.

Depth does not always need to come from complexity, and in my opinion, the best type of depth is the kind that emerges from simple mechanics.

Go is a great example of that.  Its only got 3 or 4 simple rules, but those rules interact to make an incredibly complex game.

[nbonaparte]

I wonder if something like Chess, Go, or Risk should be considered boring.  After all, the game mechanics are incredibly simple.

Depth does not always need to come from complexity, and in my opinion, the best type of depth is the kind that emerges from simple mechanics.

Go is a great example of that.  Its only got 3 or 4 simple rules, but those rules interact to make an incredibly complex game.

It makes sense, considering its resemblance to cellular automata.

[axus]

I've always enjoyed Blizzard games, playing WarCraft 1 was awesome and they kept getting better.  I haven't played any since the WoW beta, but I've always gotten my money's worth.

I won't be buying Starcraft II, but only because of the lockdowns the publisher put on the game.  I'm certain the game itself would be very fun and well-made, based on Blizzard's track record.

[SolarShado]

lockdowns the publisher put on the game.

aw... shit... what'd they do? I haven't heard about anything yet.

[Oglokoog]

Never trust a profit-seeking entity.

Quite the contrary mister! You can always trust a profit-seeking entity to behave like a profit-seeking entity. There are little surprises to be had, because the motives behind the actions of such an entity are clear. Non-profit-organizations and the people running them, though, can never be trusted. Not fully.

[Loyal]

I haven't heard of any "lockdowns" in SC2 either. The closest thing I can think of was the "real name" business awhile back, but Blizzard later rescinded that so hard it left a crater.

that doesn't mean they would be allowed to put references into the game. I know I'm not despite my forceful attempts to spread the joys of DF around the office.

You don't really ask for permission to do stuff like that. You just throw it in for fun and see what you can get away with.

The more popular a boring game is, the more it lowers the bar for game development culture as a whole, the more I have reason to dislike it.

It does no such thing. Developers in general are no more or less creative than they were twenty years ago. The difference is back then there were a lot more options to explore, and everyone took risks by necessity, because there was no real baseline for what was or wasn't "safe".

Now a lot of developers end up having to do "safe" and "boring" things to make a profit because the executives in charge tell them to; You'll notice that a LOT of the most innovative games these days come either from "indie" developers who've got nothing to lose and everything to gain, or big-time companies who are so successful that they can screw around, experiment, and still make a profit.

[Deteramot]

I, personally, have no problems with Blizzard as a company. I don't like their games very much, but they didn't become a strong company like they are by making crappy games. I just don't like Starcraft. I always felt like Command and Conquer was better.

Anyway, I feel like the reference is less a reference and more a coincidence that happens to look like a reference. It's kinda fun, but it tastes like those people who make connection to 666 based on someone's name: basically ridiculous and mostly false.