. /../Technologically Inept/ 1234567
written by Stellanaut on Jun 22, 2007 00:19
Personally, I'm a member of the "new generation" and some computer games from very early (one from 1988) i find more fun than modern games. Blanketing with stereotypes isnt accurate
krush kill 'n destroy
written by Geekofdeath on Jun 22, 2007 00:52
It is for me. I never said I don't like the game themselves, it's that I've been given so many games with "good" graphics that I don't play them. It's also the hectic and primitive control schemes that make me dislike some games two (the ASDF controls as compared to the WASD controls).

Though.... I am playing NetHack (apparently ASCII graphics are not something I dislike), which hails from 1987 (can go as far back as Rogue in 1980).
written by Bellum on Jun 22, 2007 13:50
Halo is a horrible FPS by PC standards. It (and ironically Doom3) will never stand up to the awesomeness that was Doom 2.


Retro Gaming is great.
there's science to be done!
written by Yash on Jun 22, 2007 13:55
Let's try something.
Let's try judging game visuals on workmanship and tools available at the time of creation rather than use the word GRAPHICS as an overall term.
That way, we aren't comparing visuals on the surface.
We're looking at how well technology is utilised to achieve an objective and create a certain atmosphere.
I think this is key to getting the most out of our games, whatever the age.
Since it is the atmosphere and the energy that matters most.
And being wtfpwned by bloom does not count for energy and atmosphere.
In any case, if you're smart, you can do anything with the most basic tools. Money and time become the main issues.
Things can look better in the mind than they could ever look on the screen.
krush kill 'n destroy
written by Geekofdeath on Jun 22, 2007 19:02
People these days just don't get that, however.

Graphics have been shoved so far down our throats that many games are mere copies of the previous, with only the graphics and story (which is increasingly becoming like Hollywood and its Snakes on a Plane); Tiberium Wars as an example.

It's sort of like this:

Marketing > Graphics > Realism > Tiny Gameplay Additions that are Supposed to be "Revolutionary", but are really taken from MMORPGS > Story > Gameplay

Dune 2 was revolutionary and started it's own genre. Companies like EA these days are too scared to make another groundbreaking genre for fear that it would fail.

EDIT: There ARE exceptions; World of Warcraft has sort of "defined" the MMORPG genre (although not in the way Dune 2 did with RTS) and does not concentrate on graphics as much; they are more stylistic than realistic. The story is pretty interesting as well (though it still has the many Tolkien races and cliches).
there's science to be done!
written by Yash on Jun 22, 2007 20:15
Geekofdeath said:
... and does not concentrate on graphics as much; they are more stylistic than realistic...
Blahblahblah. This is my point. It doesn't really matter if it's either stylistic or realistic, just well made. You can call it whatever you want, stylistic, and it'd still look like crap (like the drawings I used to do - haha). The guys at Blizzard are pretty good at playing with uberlow poly-count models, they do very nice things with them! I'd argue that they very much DID concentrate on the graphics, more than quite a few games out there. They had a good art team, time, money and the want for a nice polished game.

Edit
Here is a secret: Not all of the games published by EA are bad. They know how to make money, but you do get the odd title once in a while which pushes the boundries a little bit.
I'd also argue that every sort of gameplay mechanism has been used already. Ask the IRCers about my thoughts, or wait for me to repeat them sometime later.
the bestest ever
written by Medeivalstargazer on Jun 22, 2007 21:06
Erm, frankly, there aren't really any good MMO's out at the moment. Most of them are just ploys to make money. The best games come from people's free time, cause they know they aren't losing anything. When you aren't losing anything, you get HIGHLY experimental stuff, like Noctis. And by the way, Adrian did an excellent job with what he had on the sprites for Doom . He was letting loose after having to make all of the cutesy sprites for Commander Keen *rolls eyes*.
written by Bellum on Jun 22, 2007 21:14
I enjoyed WoW, and Eve Online, and...y'know, EverQuest back in the day. I like MMO's, though I've never been the type to invest all my time in one game, so that puts me in an extreme disadvantage.

Anyway, there is no formula to making a good game. Graphics certainly play a part in some games, and don't in others (Rogue and Roguelikes are still fun). Story plays a big part in some games, and don't in others. (Morrowind and Mario). Gameplay plays a big part in some games, not in others. (Starcraft VS Myst).

The important thing is that people find it enjoyable. If a good number of people find a game enjoyable, it's a good game. At least to some people. You don't have to like WoW. Lots of people hate it, and yet, for 8 million people, it's a good game, and theres nothing wrong with that.


As far as every possible gameplay mechanism being used, I disagree. I don't believe in a boundary on imagination, and I've thought of things I know I've never seen before. A big problem is that games simply cost too much to make these days to be too out of the box too often, at least for the big companies. A lot of innovation comes from Indie devs. Take Mount and Blade, for instance.
krush kill 'n destroy
written by Geekofdeath on Jun 22, 2007 21:31
Yash said:
The guys at Blizzard are pretty good at playing with uberlow poly-count models, they do very nice things with them! I'd argue that they very much DID concentrate on the graphics
What I mean (I haven't made it clear), that Blizzard did not concentrate on making the game as realistic and in proportion as possible. Their slightly cartoonish graphics make it appealing to many gamers without loosing the older ones because the cartoonish look.

Example; DEFCON (an Indie game) does not make it realistic, it's not 3D and it doesn't even use raster graphics, it makes use of vector graphics to make an extremely eerie game without all this fussing about with hundred-man art squads.

Anyways, sometimes they can concentrate on being realistic too much, although graphics are not a bad thing.
there's science to be done!
written by Yash on Jun 22, 2007 22:35
Mount and Blade isn't innovative - It's just an action RPG in a nice setting with a nice engine and controls.
hello! :) felysian
written by Hello! :) on Jun 22, 2007 22:40
Isn't it the first/only game that is primarily designed for horseback fighting?
there's science to be done!
written by Yash on Jun 22, 2007 23:07
That alone counts for innovation, though? It's not really new, since we've had horseback fighting before. M&B just happened to do it extremely well.
written by Bellum on Jun 23, 2007 02:45
It's the first (and only as far as I know) game to really concentrate and master horseback riding. Yes. That's innovation.
written by Cryoburner on Jun 23, 2007 06:43
Yash said:
Mount and Blade isn't innovative - It's just an action RPG in a nice setting with a nice engine and controls.
Actually, I never found its engine or controls to be very good. The setting felt rather derivative as well.

I suppose it has... err... horses though. : P
written by Bellum on Jun 23, 2007 07:06
The controls are more or less perfect. IMO


But yeah, the setting sucks, and will change before 1.0, apparently.
reading this thread
no members are reading this thread
. /../Technologically Inept/ 1234567
39661, 11 queries, 0.098 s.this frame is part of the AnyNowhere network