38 replies to this topic

[BeefontheBone]

Dimsey, on Apr 8 2007, 01:22 AM, said:

Adding The Darkness <snip>

Is that like KISS Psycho Circus only with more spandex?

[Eagle of Fire]

Spore is the only game I find which may have enough potential to actually become one of those games I really, really look forward to.

That's really an improvement in that area for me for the past few years... All the games I was looking forward to ended up as incredible disapointments. I just hope Spore won't do the same, 'cause that might just be the end of my gamer "career". I'm pretty fed up with the low quality of games we have today.

[Blood-Pigggy]

I'm looking forward to Crysis for the physics and AI mostly, the game itself looks like FarCry 2.0, which is nothing bad.

And Eagle, can we keep the "Old Vs New" qualitative battles out of here? It's pretty much played out, and it's clear that there's absolutely no factual answer beyond that of opinion and that differs so much its hard to find a majority, and the fact is, it doesn't really matter because people are still enjoying games as much as they did ten years ago so I don't think anyone really cares that much.

[PrejudiceSucks]

BeefontheBone, on Apr 8 2007, 09:11 PM, said:

Dimsey, on Apr 8 2007, 01:22 AM, said:

Adding The Darkness <snip>

Is that like KISS Psycho Circus only with more spandex?

Heh!

*remembers that game vaguely fondly for some reason, although it wasn't actually that good*

[Juni Ori]

Eagle of Fire, on Apr 9 2007, 02:28 AM, said:

Spore is the only game I find which may have enough potential to actually become one of those games I really, really look forward to.

That's really an improvement in that area for me for the past few years... All the games I was looking forward to ended up as incredible disapointments. I just hope Spore won't do the same, 'cause that might just be the end of my gamer "career". I'm pretty fed up with the low quality of games we have today.

Most - if not all - of the games I've been waiting for have disappointed me. Badly. Thanks to whoever it was who introduced me to HoI2, only game worth buying (with possible exception of ArmA - haven't seen it yet) so far in five years...

[Potatoe]

Juni Ori, on Apr 15 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

Eagle of Fire, on Apr 9 2007, 02:28 AM, said:

Spore is the only game I find which may have enough potential to actually become one of those games I really, really look forward to.

That's really an improvement in that area for me for the past few years... All the games I was looking forward to ended up as incredible disapointments. I just hope Spore won't do the same, 'cause that might just be the end of my gamer "career". I'm pretty fed up with the low quality of games we have today.

Most - if not all - of the games I've been waiting for have disappointed me. Badly. Thanks to whoever it was who introduced me to HoI2, only game worth buying (with possible exception of ArmA - haven't seen it yet) so far in five years...

You expect too much, or haven't looked in the right places.

An addition to my list: Halo 2 for PC and Command and Conquer 3(possible Kane's edition, which I might be buying on tuesday).

[Blood-Pigggy]

Potatoe, on Apr 15 2007, 04:41 AM, said:

Juni Ori, on Apr 15 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

Eagle of Fire, on Apr 9 2007, 02:28 AM, said:

Spore is the only game I find which may have enough potential to actually become one of those games I really, really look forward to.

That's really an improvement in that area for me for the past few years... All the games I was looking forward to ended up as incredible disapointments. I just hope Spore won't do the same, 'cause that might just be the end of my gamer "career". I'm pretty fed up with the low quality of games we have today.

Most - if not all - of the games I've been waiting for have disappointed me. Badly. Thanks to whoever it was who introduced me to HoI2, only game worth buying (with possible exception of ArmA - haven't seen it yet) so far in five years...

You expect too much, or haven't looked in the right places.

An addition to my list: Halo 2 for PC and Command and Conquer 3(possible Kane's edition, which I might be buying on tuesday).

True Potatoe, also, has anyone seen "Sins of a Solar Empire"? It's like Master of Orion REAL TIME! That's right, Master of Orion, but NOT BORING! From what I've seen, you can have some huge space battles very similar to that of Homeworld in multiple places at a single time.

[Juni Ori]

Well, you, BP, seem to like a lot of action and such on screen, but some of us enjoy depth and long-term planning, ignoring the momentary, short flash of click-fest crapola, so can you shut the meep up? Or, optionally, say something creative of the... well, whatever you are saying? Ever.

But, Potatoe, my country-fellow, why is it so hard today to focus on what is important? Most of the games today lack innovation and creativity. On a certain level I do miss the times when we didn't have massive capacity on graphics, and gamemakers had to come up with something original to really make name. Nowadays, it's too commercial. It depends on too much how much publicity you get for the game. It's morbid symbiosis and it's always been, but nowadays it has escalated. Unless you do something really original, or get into touch with marketing people, you can't succeed. Good example: Operation Flashpoint. Not many would had put their bets for it, but it was examplary in innovation and dare to break walls.

Kind of point being here is, that we are - on a certrain level - supposed to be the ones who appreciate creativity, innovation, depth, etc... We are community full of fresh ideas, not bowing to the too-commercial-trademarks that are flooding every possible media. Old fact: let the amateurs make the innovations, let the pros do the management.

[DeathDude]

Cough Nintendo DS and Wii anyone? I would say the innovation is actually there but a lot of the times it is passed off as being too gimmicky or unusual enough to warrant a significant amount of attention compared to other genres (such as cooking mama for the DS, Trauma Center, are some examples) they may not necessairly be new ideas, but least its different than the norm of certain games.

Granted it is true that a lot of games made are for commercial purposes, but what choice can there be? Games cost a lot of money to make, and unless you have a publisher backing a developer studio, it can be hard to get your game out there, much less distribute it to many markets.

For Flashpoint that game got hammered pretty bad by not only gamers, and the press, while it was different it wasn't to the extent that other games of the time which had a greater and ultimately more successful formula. Delta force, the quakes, unreal tournaments, and others, now those are just some examples of games that were ultimately more successful and had more of an impact on the genre, not to mention the countless half life mods that also spawned that brought new ideas to the forefront.

Originiality can be tough to pull off nowadays just with the amount that there is out there, the main thing is for developers to put a solid game out there, that has replay value, different paths to beat the game, and offer something different (look at battefield earth, a FPS on the outside but taking the idea of vehicle use by such games like Tribes and using them on a grander scale, its not wonder its one of the top FPS's out there and is still growing with 2 and 2142.)

[Juni Ori]

At first, you are hammering OFP - and some others if you are to be believed... well, there are other perspectives and OFP-community is even still alive and kicking, harder than many of games of its age - and next you say "that has replay value, different paths to beat the game", which OFP indeed has. Have you really tried out different outcomes in the game? And, if it wasn't success, why on earth did they do two sequels???????

On very many levels OFP brought a lot of new to the genre... Hmm... Actually they did a genre of their own, but anyways... and it was and is even still liked, played, modded, etc, you name it (try googling OFP mods... ), so I don't think your, DD, comparison is quite valid. And that is not to say other games aren't working, don't have mods, etc. But OFP is alive and modded to infinity (or so it seems).

Btw... About modding, how many games have you seen where there's actually a chance to script a nuke strike into it? I've seen one. I've seen it done pretty damn well.

[DeathDude]

I was merely pointing out with the idea of different paths and replay value of games nowadays not OPF, read a little closer dude.

Yes the game may do it well but compare it to other games of the genre from when it launched, now can't speak for European numbers but NA numbers are less than favourable compared to other FPS games that launched when the 1st game came out, its a series that has lasted no doubt, its just not at such a niche level that it may be seen as in that community.

My main point was to disprove your idea of lack of creativity, your just not looking hard enough because there is plenty of games out there not just on the console side and the pc side, especially in freeware and in the commercial realm, a lot of games do not get the exposure that other high profiled games, the industry keeps growing dude, its not losing money, its not in trouble, so something has to be right for it to keep making money. While yes many established franchises do help in this regard, there are other ones that help as well, it just takes developers taking a chance and have the backing of a publisher to make new ideas come forward, but they are out there, and while on the surface they may seem to have been done before in some capacity, got to give them a chance at the very least.

[Juni Ori]

Then disprove. Truth is, that in last half a decade there hasn't been much more evolution but in graphics. If you don't want to admit it, fine. Don't. OFP, even though it didn't sell as much as much more hyped games, brought a lot into the "genre of FPS", or better said, created genre of its own. Why did unknown company jump to the charts (without hype at start)? Answer is simple: they were innovative.

You said it yourself in the end: a lot of potentially good games lack the publicity they'd deserve - and thus many of the game makers don't even try to create something new, because there's already working - though stagnant - way to do things.

[Doubler]

Oh, and DD, do you really think anything other then a no-brains no-frills shooter can possibly appeal to a crowd as huge and diverse as the general FPS market caters for? As soon as things become more complex and add more personality, you lose total market. End of story. You can't possibly hope to break even, since it's a diversion from the norm

Wait, don't answer that. Can we get back on topic instead?

Sins of a Solar Empire does look good. I'm also quite curious how Fallout 3 will turn out, even though it'll be a while.
And I think I forgot to mention White Gold in my last post?

[Blood-Pigggy]

Juni Ori, on Apr 21 2007, 10:14 PM, said:

Well, you, BP, seem to like a lot of action and such on screen, but some of us enjoy depth and long-term planning, ignoring the momentary, short flash of click-fest crapola, so can you shut the meep up? Or, optionally, say something creative of the... well, whatever you are saying? Ever.

But, Potatoe, my country-fellow, why is it so hard today to focus on what is important? Most of the games today lack innovation and creativity. On a certain level I do miss the times when we didn't have massive capacity on graphics, and gamemakers had to come up with something original to really make name. Nowadays, it's too commercial. It depends on too much how much publicity you get for the game. It's morbid symbiosis and it's always been, but nowadays it has escalated. Unless you do something really original, or get into touch with marketing people, you can't succeed. Good example: Operation Flashpoint. Not many would had put their bets for it, but it was examplary in innovation and dare to break walls.

Kind of point being here is, that we are - on a certrain level - supposed to be the ones who appreciate creativity, innovation, depth, etc... We are community full of fresh ideas, not bowing to the too-commercial-trademarks that are flooding every possible media. Old fact: let the amateurs make the innovations, let the pros do the management.

People who say the industry is at a lack of original material today are people living in the past, same as the people who complained ten years ago that everything was C&C or Warcraft clone.

Get with it, it happens ALWAYS, it happened in the 80s, it happened in the 90s, and it's happening right now. There's never a lack of "originality" or "innovation" in the industry, it's just a constant influx of people copying each other or taking material and making it better. It's not different than it was before, and OFP is just an example of a game like X-Com that wasn't really like anything else in its time, and that can be said of nearly every year. Dune 2, Freedom Force, System Shock, Ultima, Super Mario Bros.

It's not that people aren't trying to be original, it's that the industry that fuels the games that we make today require developers to pull in the reins for their games far too much when it comes to creativity, and they did the same thing 20 years ago, like when Nintendo monopolized the console gaming industry and forced developers into twisting games into what they wanted. Publishers do it all the time today, it hasn't changed, and it won't.

[Juni Ori]

BP, you do have a point and I didn't say, that there hasn't always been game makers copying others work. In the late 80's and early 90's sidescrollers brought very little new compared to how many of them were published. Worst possible example are the old SSI AD&D games. They just drained customers pockets doing another not-so-creative-story and brought possibly one or two new features into the game. How much there's difference - not storywise - between Curse of the Azure Bonds and Secret of the Silver Blades? And yes, I own(ed?) both. However, I was disappointed to SotSB and thus I didn't give them more of my money.

But I haven't seen or heard of a game lately, that would had really brought something new. And even that may be false statement in general, because game industry hasn't brought something new, that would interest me! These are always subjective views and what I've heard about Wii for example tells me there may have been great step forward in gaming. But I'm not interested of it that much. Perhaps I'll change my mind when I one day get to try it - if I ever do.

And, back to topic: As Doulber reminded, I'm also interested at Fallout 3. Were they ever going to do sequel to Fallout Tactics? Or better asked: what happened to it? It was a great game, however linear and some minor oddities, but great game anyways. I might even replay it... *goes searching for the CDs*