EA's newest hit Dwarf Fortress: Retribution takes the popular franchise into a bold new direction. Abandoning the ASCII in favor of state-of-the-art graphics, this immersive game presents Dwarf Fortress as it was always meant to be played.
"I have always been an avid fan of Dwarf Fortress, and I'm proud to finally make it into a game that is as accessible to new players as it is for the veterans." says John Thompson from the EA marketing division. "From the first person perspective you get a perfect view to the dark, claustrophobic mines where the goblins and demons are waiting for you behind each corner."
The damage system is more streamlined, while keeping the classic splints and crutches as health pickups. The accurate bodypart-centric damage is also there, and in boss fights like the dragon you must first destroy its claws before getting a chance to strike its heart. Dwarf Fortress boasts over a dozen different weapons and an unique crafting system for upgrading them for either speed, damage or accuracy. "I always loved the detailed geology in the original game. That is why each gem has an element associated with it for a temporary stat boost."
While the plot of Dwarf Fotress: Retribution is still a secret, the pre-release cutscenes have given some insights into the new world EA has created. You take on the role of Ulrich the dwarf, and with the aid of the beautiful elven sorceress Cacame you are sent down to the deepest mines to assault the gobling fortress. Ulrich is betrayed by his commander and he discovers a great secret threatening the fate of the world itself.
The Dwarf Fortress has indeed come a long way from its humble origins and matured into a full-fledged fantasy shooter. Fast-paced combat and the dark setting are sure to make this a must-have for fantasy gamers and hardcore online gamers alike.
Details:
-Three levels raging from mines and underground caverns to the massive dark fortress
-Collect the mysterious adamantium to increase your stats and gain new abilities
-Buy new armors, ranging from rope reed clothes to golden plate mail
-5 boss fights against the most imaginative monsters ever created
-Five different weapons with three upgrades each
-Helpful support characters with healing spells and offensive magic
-12 player multiplayer with modes like deathmatch arena and mine flags
Already talked about, more or less. Good points there though. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=93767.msg2638761#msg2638761)EA's newest hit Dwarf Fortress: Retribution takes the popular franchise into a bold new direction. Abandoning the ASCII in favor of state-of-the-art graphics, this immersive game presents Dwarf Fortress as it was always meant to be played.
"I have always been an avid fan of Dwarf Fortress, and I'm proud to finally make it into a game that is as accessible to new players as it is for the veterans." says John Thompson from the EA marketing division. "From the first person perspective you get a perfect view to the dark, claustrophobic mines where the goblins and demons are waiting for you behind each corner."
The damage system is more streamlined, while keeping the classic splints and crutches as health pickups. The accurate bodypart-centric damage is also there, and in boss fights like the dragon you must first destroy its claws before getting a chance to strike its heart. Dwarf Fortress boasts over a dozen different weapons and an unique crafting system for upgrading them for either speed, damage or accuracy. "I always loved the detailed geology in the original game. That is why each gem has an element associated with it for a temporary stat boost."
While the plot of Dwarf Fotress: Retribution is still a secret, the pre-release cutscenes have given some insights into the new world EA has created. You take on the role of Ulrich the dwarf, and with the aid of the beautiful elven sorceress Cacame you are sent down to the deepest mines to assault the gobling fortress. Ulrich is betrayed by his commander and he discovers a great secret threatening the fate of the world itself.
The Dwarf Fortress has indeed come a long way from its humble origins and matured into a full-fledged fantasy shooter. Fast-paced combat and the dark setting are sure to make this a must-have for fantasy gamers and hardcore online gamers alike.
Details:
-Three levels raging from mines and underground caverns to the massive dark fortress
-Collect the mysterious adamantium to increase your stats and gain new abilities
-Buy new armors, ranging from rope reed clothes to golden plate mail
-5 boss fights against the most imaginative monsters ever created
-Five different weapons with three upgrades each
-Helpful support characters with healing spells and offensive magic
-12 player multiplayer with modes like deathmatch arena and mine flags
Who/what is the final boss?Did you not just answer that question?
&
Already talked about, more or less. Good points there though. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=93767.msg2638761#msg2638761)EA's newest hit Dwarf Fortress: Retribution takes the popular franchise into a bold new direction. Abandoning the ASCII in favor of state-of-the-art graphics, this immersive game presents Dwarf Fortress as it was always meant to be played.
"I have always been an avid fan of Dwarf Fortress, and I'm proud to finally make it into a game that is as accessible to new players as it is for the veterans." says John Thompson from the EA marketing division. "From the first person perspective you get a perfect view to the dark, claustrophobic mines where the goblins and demons are waiting for you behind each corner."
The damage system is more streamlined, while keeping the classic splints and crutches as health pickups. The accurate bodypart-centric damage is also there, and in boss fights like the dragon you must first destroy its claws before getting a chance to strike its heart. Dwarf Fortress boasts over a dozen different weapons and an unique crafting system for upgrading them for either speed, damage or accuracy. "I always loved the detailed geology in the original game. That is why each gem has an element associated with it for a temporary stat boost."
While the plot of Dwarf Fotress: Retribution is still a secret, the pre-release cutscenes have given some insights into the new world EA has created. You take on the role of Ulrich the dwarf, and with the aid of the beautiful elven sorceress Cacame you are sent down to the deepest mines to assault the gobling fortress. Ulrich is betrayed by his commander and he discovers a great secret threatening the fate of the world itself.
The Dwarf Fortress has indeed come a long way from its humble origins and matured into a full-fledged fantasy shooter. Fast-paced combat and the dark setting are sure to make this a must-have for fantasy gamers and hardcore online gamers alike.
Details:
-Three levels raging from mines and underground caverns to the massive dark fortress
-Collect the mysterious adamantium to increase your stats and gain new abilities
-Buy new armors, ranging from rope reed clothes to golden plate mail
-5 boss fights against the most imaginative monsters ever created
-Five different weapons with three upgrades each
-Helpful support characters with healing spells and offensive magic
-12 player multiplayer with modes like deathmatch arena and mine flags
Already talked about, more or less. Good points there though. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=93767.msg2638761#msg2638761)EA's newest hit Dwarf Fortress: Retribution takes the popular franchise into a bold new direction. Abandoning the ASCII in favor of state-of-the-art graphics, this immersive game presents Dwarf Fortress as it was always meant to be played.
"I have always been an avid fan of Dwarf Fortress, and I'm proud to finally make it into a game that is as accessible to new players as it is for the veterans." says John Thompson from the EA marketing division. "From the first person perspective you get a perfect view to the dark, claustrophobic mines where the goblins and demons are waiting for you behind each corner."
The damage system is more streamlined, while keeping the classic splints and crutches as health pickups. The accurate bodypart-centric damage is also there, and in boss fights like the dragon you must first destroy its claws before getting a chance to strike its heart. Dwarf Fortress boasts over a dozen different weapons and an unique crafting system for upgrading them for either speed, damage or accuracy. "I always loved the detailed geology in the original game. That is why each gem has an element associated with it for a temporary stat boost."
While the plot of Dwarf Fotress: Retribution is still a secret, the pre-release cutscenes have given some insights into the new world EA has created. You take on the role of Ulrich the dwarf, and with the aid of the beautiful elven sorceress Cacame you are sent down to the deepest mines to assault the gobling fortress. Ulrich is betrayed by his commander and he discovers a great secret threatening the fate of the world itself.
The Dwarf Fortress has indeed come a long way from its humble origins and matured into a full-fledged fantasy shooter. Fast-paced combat and the dark setting are sure to make this a must-have for fantasy gamers and hardcore online gamers alike.
Details:
-Three levels raging from mines and underground caverns to the massive dark fortress
-Collect the mysterious adamantium to increase your stats and gain new abilities
-Buy new armors, ranging from rope reed clothes to golden plate mail
-5 boss fights against the most imaginative monsters ever created
-Five different weapons with three upgrades each
-Helpful support characters with healing spells and offensive magic
-12 player multiplayer with modes like deathmatch arena and mine flags
I honestly don't understand why there is such hatred, myself, especially since I never liked FPS games in the first place, and have generally been more interested in fringy indie games to begin with, but hey, whatever.You're like, so ahead of the curve, maaan. :P
Of course, if it actually happened I'd most likely go beserk, Urist style.
You forgot to add in a "dynamic achievement system that creates new achievements as you unlock more" that are all for dumb things and easy to get but push the reward button in the player's head.
The Sims: Dwarf Fortress.
Think about it.
EDIT: I meant by this that EA isn't all bad.
2 things... Sims 2 was the best of the series. Added a lot of stuff that Sims 1 needed like genetics and aging and such forth, but you're completely on point about 3. And whatever Sid Myer's game company is called (2K games, I think?) is remaking a true X-Com game. Check it out, it looks great.The Sims: Dwarf Fortress.
Think about it.
EDIT: I meant by this that EA isn't all bad.
The Sims 1? Yeah, that was a fun game. Or at least, I enjoyed modding it, not so much the "playing the game" part.
Sims 3, where they do things like put in pointless multiplayer features and punish players for not using them, and built their entire model on DLC when players of the Sims were generating content for free? I haven't bothered playing it.
But then, the modding community makes or breaks a lot of games, which in turn makes it a function of how nice the companies are to modders.
Of course they've published good games - they wouldn't be rolling around in so much money if they hadn't, but the trend hasn't been entirely positive recently.
I'd respect EA a bit more if they didn't make so many dick moves regarding things like pulling out of Steam and forcing me into signing up for Origin without even asking for my permission just because I played Mass Effect 2 or buying all rights to the NFL so that there couldn't even be legitimate competition to their Madden series. (Not that I've played one of those games since Super Nintendo, anyways...)
And they did that thing where they took a classic isometric tactical combat game and turned it into a FPS with absolutely no respect for what made the original a classic in order to make it exactly the same as all their other FPS games (although I suppose X-Com's memory was desecrated long before that...)
On topic. Am I the only one who thinks of those old 80s/90s games when I hear "adventure game"? Cause what y'all are talking about are action-adventure games. But I could see Sierra's Dwarf Quest, what with all the crazy deaths they included in their games.
On topic. Am I the only one who thinks of those old 80s/90s games when I hear "adventure game"? Cause what y'all are talking about are action-adventure games. But I could see Sierra's Dwarf Quest, what with all the crazy deaths they included in their games.
I would play the crap out of an old Sierra-styled Dwarf Quest. Especially if it had a text interface instead of the point and click interface.
And whatever Sid Myer's game company is called (2K games, I think?) is remaking a true X-Com game. Check it out, it looks great.
4. ? ? ?The wheely chair has been toppled!
That said, making fun of Call of Duty is like taking candy from a mentally retarded paraplegic child: easy, not very satisfying, and rather pathetic when you stop to think about it.
Stealing candy from a retarded paraplegic child is harder of what you might think, but I agree is not very satisfying.Truly, all I ever needed to know I learned from Bay Twelve forumites.
Stealing candy from a retarded paraplegic child is harder of what you might think, but I agree is not very satisfying.
As someone who used to play the original syndicate on the Amiga as a boy I should kill you were you posted for that comment!There's a reason Fallout 3 was the last Bethesda game I've bother playing. Bethesda seems to be VERY good at making huge worlds I want to explore, then stocking them with the most forgettable NPCs of any RPG I've played past the mid 80s.
Don't forget the procedurally generated quests with loot and none of that pointless plot and setting (I'm looking at you skyrim - specifically those godawful dark brotherhood quests)
Also all armour will come in four pieces; gloves, breastplate, boots and helmet so our designers don't have to bother dealing with overlap issues.
We'll keep the long speeches, but instead of a wall of easily skippable text it's going to be a ten minute speech by whichever vaguely famous berk we can find, and it'll be completely unskippable
In case you can't see what I'm doing here; f*** you Bethesda! Skyrim is a good game, but it feels like you cut every corner possible and threw in as many marketing gimmicks as you thought you could get away with.
As someone who used to play the original syndicate on the Amiga as a boy I should kill you were you posted for that comment!There's a reason Fallout 3 was the last Bethesda game I've bother playing. Bethesda seems to be VERY good at making huge worlds I want to explore, then stocking them with the most forgettable NPCs of any RPG I've played past the mid 80s.
Don't forget the procedurally generated quests with loot and none of that pointless plot and setting (I'm looking at you skyrim - specifically those godawful dark brotherhood quests)
Also all armour will come in four pieces; gloves, breastplate, boots and helmet so our designers don't have to bother dealing with overlap issues.
We'll keep the long speeches, but instead of a wall of easily skippable text it's going to be a ten minute speech by whichever vaguely famous berk we can find, and it'll be completely unskippable
In case you can't see what I'm doing here; f*** you Bethesda! Skyrim is a good game, but it feels like you cut every corner possible and threw in as many marketing gimmicks as you thought you could get away with.
I know I'll get crucified for this, but, I can't help wondering of the communists had won would the world be a bit less crap?
The only reason America went to the moon was because the communists got into space first. Who knows what they would have done if it had been a scythe and sickle instead.
My point is that this seems to be common with allot of capitalist companies that they only do something out of spite. The problem is dictorial countries are much better ay advancing human knowledge. While democracy is better at placating the masses.
I read it that way first time ... really need to go out some more time ...Who/what is the final boss?Did you not just answer that question?&
things in the past are better!
literally the oldest argument on the internet.
*yawn*
Citation needed.things in the past are better!
literally the oldest argument on the internet.
*yawn*
Not really. The newest DF is newer than the newest CoD.
Guess which is better.
FIFAYou know you are talking about a game that simulates an sport that hasn't changed in decades right? Saying that FIFA gameplay has stagnated is unfair. EA releases a new FIFA every year, so what? If they do it is because there are people buying it and if there are people buying is because they find value in yearly releases it's a win win scenario.
Also as to the DF as a RPG, I looked through, but why was iron better than bronze at piercing and slashing? Iron is slightly denser (I think) but it's nowhere near as good at holding an edge.
The point is, we're not saying old things are better. We're saying that new things need to step up their game somewhat.Why? Seriously, this not cancer research, this is entertainment software we are talking about, nobody "need" to do anything. Really your arguments sound a lot like my grandparents used to use against TV so long ago.
If not by improving quality, at least by stopping pushing the (frankly not too bright) consumers into buying stuff thy didn't want.And this is what I'm arguing about, this elitism that isn't helping your argument. Who are you to decide what they want? If they want to spend their money on junk the best. People spending money is good for economy actually.
As to the yearly releases thing, it's because the more they release the same thing over and over as a new game, the more flimsy their business plan looks. It's like if I had a company that sold watches. If I sold one line of watches, that'd be fair enough. As long as they sold enough that's fine. Then if I released ANOTHER watch and was talking about how great it was and so was everyone else and you bought it; you'd probably have doubts when it was the same watch but with a second hand that glowed in the dark.This is like saying vehicle manufacturers should stop making new car models every year because it's a bad business practice that will render them bankrupt, yet they have been doing fine all these years. Reality disproves your argument.
Also I'm generally dissapointed in games that are gyped up because of, most recently, Spore. That was kind of sad to play when I got it.If you leave hype guide your purchasing decisions then you have none to blame but yourself. Personally if I think a game description is too good to be true then I wait until I read a few reviews before buying. Usually games don't turn out too well but sometimes there are good surprises.
The point is, we're not saying old things are better. We're saying that new things need to step up their game somewhat.Why? Seriously, this not cancer research, this is entertainment software we are talking about, nobody "need" to do anything.
I actually like Call of Duty and Halo. The only singleplayer game I play right now is Prototype 2 and Dark Souls.
things in the past are better!
literally the oldest argument on the internet.
*yawn*
Already talked about, more or less. Good points there though. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=93767.msg2638761#msg2638761)EA's newest hit Dwarf Fortress: Retribution takes the popular franchise into a bold new direction. Abandoning the ASCII in favor of state-of-the-art graphics, this immersive game presents Dwarf Fortress as it was always meant to be played.
"I have always been an avid fan of Dwarf Fortress, and I'm proud to finally make it into a game that is as accessible to new players as it is for the veterans." says John Thompson from the EA marketing division. "From the first person perspective you get a perfect view to the dark, claustrophobic mines where the goblins and demons are waiting for you behind each corner."
The damage system is more streamlined, while keeping the classic splints and crutches as health pickups. The accurate bodypart-centric damage is also there, and in boss fights like the dragon you must first destroy its claws before getting a chance to strike its heart. Dwarf Fortress boasts over a dozen different weapons and an unique crafting system for upgrading them for either speed, damage or accuracy. "I always loved the detailed geology in the original game. That is why each gem has an element associated with it for a temporary stat boost."
While the plot of Dwarf Fotress: Retribution is still a secret, the pre-release cutscenes have given some insights into the new world EA has created. You take on the role of Ulrich the dwarf, and with the aid of the beautiful elven sorceress Cacame you are sent down to the deepest mines to assault the gobling fortress. Ulrich is betrayed by his commander and he discovers a great secret threatening the fate of the world itself.
The Dwarf Fortress has indeed come a long way from its humble origins and matured into a full-fledged fantasy shooter. Fast-paced combat and the dark setting are sure to make this a must-have for fantasy gamers and hardcore online gamers alike.
Details:
-Three levels raging from mines and underground caverns to the massive dark fortress
-Collect the mysterious adamantium to increase your stats and gain new abilities
-Buy new armors, ranging from rope reed clothes to golden plate mail
-5 boss fights against the most imaginative monsters ever created
-Five different weapons with three upgrades each
-Helpful support characters with healing spells and offensive magic
-12 player multiplayer with modes like deathmatch arena and mine flags
with the aid of the beautiful elven sorceress Cacame
Also I'm generally dissapointed in games that are gyped up because of, most recently, Spore. That was kind of sad to play when I got it. It's like someone offered you luxury sports car but then stripped out all of the luxury because they thought it might confuse learner drivers. And yes that was their justification for at least only having one kind of sight mode (as opposed to heat-vision, echolocation etc), because people might "think their graphics card was damaged". Seriously.
Also I'm generally dissapointed in games that are gyped up because of, most recently, Spore. That was kind of sad to play when I got it. It's like someone offered you luxury sports car but then stripped out all of the luxury because they thought it might confuse learner drivers. And yes that was their justification for at least only having one kind of sight mode (as opposed to heat-vision, echolocation etc), because people might "think their graphics card was damaged". Seriously.
As much as I agree with what you said here, my biggest problem is that Spore also failed to deliver on its most basic promise. I didn't really feel like I had shaped anything about my species beyond its appearance. Sure, I got to make it a meat eater, I got to make it aggressive, but these are the thinnest shell of what I had created. I gave my species wings it didn't use, I gave it poison spitters it didn't use. Why didn't I have the tribe of ultra-violent flying poison spitting bad-asses I had imagined?
Its not that the older games were better, its just that they didn't have all the glitz that you can have with the modern systems, so they had to be more creative. There are some exceptions, for example, I fully think that Civ 4 is far superior to Civ 2. Civ 3 was crap, but that was mainly growing pains as they introduced resources and territory. Plus the golden ages in 3 weren't very good. I think 4 is better than 5, but that's just because of all the stuff in the expansion packs. I like the changes they introduced in 5, and feel that it will be better than 4 when it gets all its expansion packs. Its a game that's evolving and figuring out what are the best parts to add, and what needs to be changed.
Then you have stuff like Fallout 3. They took the most superficial parts of Fallout, the visual aspects of it, and shoved it into the same engine that Oblivion ran on. Oblivion felt like nothing more than a prettier version of Morrowind to me. Sure, there were some small changes, but overall, it felt like Morrowind. Skyrim has the same feel, like a prettier Oblivion. Sure, they've fixed some parts, but it feels really minor. Well, the loss of attributes and move to nothing but skills is a big change, but I feel its a step backwards. One of the core parts of RPGs, IMO, is the separation of character and player. Not only are there things the character can do that the player can't, the character might be smarter or dumber, the character might be stronger or weaker. However, back to Fallout, that respect of the character's attributes is lost. One of the things that annoyed me was having to squint to see tripwires when my character has a high perception, and therefore should be able to see them, and I, as the player, should have them highlighted for me. And on the subject of intelligence, well, compare these videos.
Stupid in Fallout 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuBjeLiWhek)
Stupid in New Vegas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZwfJoZ2oE)
Once again, its the most superficial overlay. In Fallout 1, all you could do is grunt, and the Overseer is speaking slowly and getting frustrated when you don't understand. In New Vegas, you can respond with speech that makes you look stupid, yes, but the scientist doesn't react like he's talking to a moron. He reacts like he's talking to a person of normal intelligence. To me, that's the problem with modern games. They don't put the attention to detail. And its the many small things that will eventually chip away at your suspension of disbelief until you lose it. Or at least its that way for me.
I have to agree with that too. The methods of sight thing was an example, they wanted to streamline the game (strip away the most interesting features) to make it accessible to players who basically don't know what they're doing.
And it's why cell will forever be the most fun stage to play.
So in other words, old is better. ::)
Yesteryear had as many bad games as there are today, it's just that we tend to look at the past with rose tinted glasses. Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days. And their parent say the exact same thing about older stuff. Really it's a constant of life that old people complain about younglins and their satanic immoral hobbies. It's unfortunate because we are currently on the beginning of the golden age of gaming, see: Dwarf Fortress. This game would be impossible 20 years ago.Also true. Unfortunately, in 10 years some people will undoubtedly be saying "This game was better in 34.whatever!!"
Unfortunately, in 10 years some people will undoubtedly be saying "This game was better in 34.whatever!!"
Yesteryear had as many bad games as there are today, it's just that we tend to look at the past with rose tinted glasses. Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days. And their parent say the exact same thing about older stuff. Really it's a constant of life that old people complain about younglins and their satanic immoral hobbies. It's unfortunate because we are currently on the beginning of the golden age of gaming, see: Dwarf Fortress. This game would be impossible 20 years ago.I'm not saying there were no bad games in the past, I'm saying that the good games in the past were, on a general level, better than the good games of today. Especially RPGS. Cause games today are not aimed at gamers, they're aimed at casual gamers, with "streamlined" controls to make everything easy for consoles, cause they can't understand why people don't want to spend money on their crap and pirate it instead.
Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days.
Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days.
Bah! You kids and your fancy pop! Music has been no good since the Baroque!
And you're probably older than me...
Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days.
Bah! You kids and your fancy pop! Music has been no good since the Baroque!
And you're probably older than me...
I quite disagree, its been nothing but a downhill slide ever since the first caveman banged two rocks together, and created the only TRUE music.
Also I'm generally dissapointed in games that are gyped up because of, most recently, Spore. That was kind of sad to play when I got it. It's like someone offered you luxury sports car but then stripped out all of the luxury because they thought it might confuse learner drivers. And yes that was their justification for at least only having one kind of sight mode (as opposed to heat-vision, echolocation etc), because people might "think their graphics card was damaged". Seriously.
As much as I agree with what you said here, my biggest problem is that Spore also failed to deliver on its most basic promise. I didn't really feel like I had shaped anything about my species beyond its appearance. Sure, I got to make it a meat eater, I got to make it aggressive, but these are the thinnest shell of what I had created. I gave my species wings it didn't use, I gave it poison spitters it didn't use. Why didn't I have the tribe of ultra-violent flying poison spitting bad-asses I had imagined?
Its not that the older games were better, its just that they didn't have all the glitz that you can have with the modern systems, so they had to be more creative. There are some exceptions, for example, I fully think that Civ 4 is far superior to Civ 2. Civ 3 was crap, but that was mainly growing pains as they introduced resources and territory. Plus the golden ages in 3 weren't very good. I think 4 is better than 5, but that's just because of all the stuff in the expansion packs. I like the changes they introduced in 5, and feel that it will be better than 4 when it gets all its expansion packs. Its a game that's evolving and figuring out what are the best parts to add, and what needs to be changed.
Then you have stuff like Fallout 3. They took the most superficial parts of Fallout, the visual aspects of it, and shoved it into the same engine that Oblivion ran on. Oblivion felt like nothing more than a prettier version of Morrowind to me. Sure, there were some small changes, but overall, it felt like Morrowind. Skyrim has the same feel, like a prettier Oblivion. Sure, they've fixed some parts, but it feels really minor. Well, the loss of attributes and move to nothing but skills is a big change, but I feel its a step backwards. One of the core parts of RPGs, IMO, is the separation of character and player. Not only are there things the character can do that the player can't, the character might be smarter or dumber, the character might be stronger or weaker. However, back to Fallout, that respect of the character's attributes is lost. One of the things that annoyed me was having to squint to see tripwires when my character has a high perception, and therefore should be able to see them, and I, as the player, should have them highlighted for me. And on the subject of intelligence, well, compare these videos.
Stupid in Fallout 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuBjeLiWhek)
Stupid in New Vegas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZwfJoZ2oE)
Once again, its the most superficial overlay. In Fallout 1, all you could do is grunt, and the Overseer is speaking slowly and getting frustrated when you don't understand. In New Vegas, you can respond with speech that makes you look stupid, yes, but the scientist doesn't react like he's talking to a moron. He reacts like he's talking to a person of normal intelligence. To me, that's the problem with modern games. They don't put the attention to detail. And its the many small things that will eventually chip away at your suspension of disbelief until you lose it. Or at least its that way for me.
So in other words, old is better. ::)
No, older games were more creative in how they presented the game, because they didn't have the graphical capabilities that modern systems do. Modern games seem to be glitz over story. But there are exceptions. Dragon Age:Origins, while it had a few flaws, is a truly enjoyable RPG in the vein of great classic RPGs. The Mass Effect games have a truly engaging story, with an amazingly in depth world, despite its few flaws. And going back, Baldur's Gate had flaws, X-COM had flaws, the Ultima games had flaws. It is impossible to create a game without flaws. If the strength of your story, characters, and world outweigh the flaws, you have a good game. The popular games these days are mostly glitz and graphics with weak stories, worlds and characters. The only thing in Skyrim, for example, that I have no complaint whatsoever with is the scale of dragons. I've only put a few hours into the game, and feel they're a little too easy, but I hope that'll change as time goes on, you know the sorting algorithm of evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfEvil) and all.
Yesteryear had as many bad games as there are today, it's just that we tend to look at the past with rose tinted glasses. Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days. And their parent say the exact same thing about older stuff. Really it's a constant of life that old people complain about younglins and their satanic immoral hobbies. It's unfortunate because we are currently on the beginning of the golden age of gaming, see: Dwarf Fortress. This game would be impossible 20 years ago.
Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days.
Bah! You kids and your fancy pop! Music has been no good since the Baroque!
And you're probably older than me...
I quite disagree, its been nothing but a downhill slide ever since the first caveman banged two rocks together, and created the only TRUE music.
Quite. "Duh Duh Deh" was always my favorite.
Also I'm generally dissapointed in games that are gyped up because of, most recently, Spore. That was kind of sad to play when I got it. It's like someone offered you luxury sports car but then stripped out all of the luxury because they thought it might confuse learner drivers. And yes that was their justification for at least only having one kind of sight mode (as opposed to heat-vision, echolocation etc), because people might "think their graphics card was damaged". Seriously.
As much as I agree with what you said here, my biggest problem is that Spore also failed to deliver on its most basic promise. I didn't really feel like I had shaped anything about my species beyond its appearance. Sure, I got to make it a meat eater, I got to make it aggressive, but these are the thinnest shell of what I had created. I gave my species wings it didn't use, I gave it poison spitters it didn't use. Why didn't I have the tribe of ultra-violent flying poison spitting bad-asses I had imagined?
Its not that the older games were better, its just that they didn't have all the glitz that you can have with the modern systems, so they had to be more creative. There are some exceptions, for example, I fully think that Civ 4 is far superior to Civ 2. Civ 3 was crap, but that was mainly growing pains as they introduced resources and territory. Plus the golden ages in 3 weren't very good. I think 4 is better than 5, but that's just because of all the stuff in the expansion packs. I like the changes they introduced in 5, and feel that it will be better than 4 when it gets all its expansion packs. Its a game that's evolving and figuring out what are the best parts to add, and what needs to be changed.
Then you have stuff like Fallout 3. They took the most superficial parts of Fallout, the visual aspects of it, and shoved it into the same engine that Oblivion ran on. Oblivion felt like nothing more than a prettier version of Morrowind to me. Sure, there were some small changes, but overall, it felt like Morrowind. Skyrim has the same feel, like a prettier Oblivion. Sure, they've fixed some parts, but it feels really minor. Well, the loss of attributes and move to nothing but skills is a big change, but I feel its a step backwards. One of the core parts of RPGs, IMO, is the separation of character and player. Not only are there things the character can do that the player can't, the character might be smarter or dumber, the character might be stronger or weaker. However, back to Fallout, that respect of the character's attributes is lost. One of the things that annoyed me was having to squint to see tripwires when my character has a high perception, and therefore should be able to see them, and I, as the player, should have them highlighted for me. And on the subject of intelligence, well, compare these videos.
Stupid in Fallout 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuBjeLiWhek)
Stupid in New Vegas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZwfJoZ2oE)
Once again, its the most superficial overlay. In Fallout 1, all you could do is grunt, and the Overseer is speaking slowly and getting frustrated when you don't understand. In New Vegas, you can respond with speech that makes you look stupid, yes, but the scientist doesn't react like he's talking to a moron. He reacts like he's talking to a person of normal intelligence. To me, that's the problem with modern games. They don't put the attention to detail. And its the many small things that will eventually chip away at your suspension of disbelief until you lose it. Or at least its that way for me.So in other words, old is better. ::)
No, older games were more creative in how they presented the game, because they didn't have the graphical capabilities that modern systems do. Modern games seem to be glitz over story. But there are exceptions. Dragon Age:Origins, while it had a few flaws, is a truly enjoyable RPG in the vein of great classic RPGs. The Mass Effect games have a truly engaging story, with an amazingly in depth world, despite its few flaws. And going back, Baldur's Gate had flaws, X-COM had flaws, the Ultima games had flaws. It is impossible to create a game without flaws. If the strength of your story, characters, and world outweigh the flaws, you have a good game. The popular games these days are mostly glitz and graphics with weak stories, worlds and characters. The only thing in Skyrim, for example, that I have no complaint whatsoever with is the scale of dragons. I've only put a few hours into the game, and feel they're a little too easy, but I hope that'll change as time goes on, you know the sorting algorithm of evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfEvil) and all.Yesteryear had as many bad games as there are today, it's just that we tend to look at the past with rose tinted glasses. Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days. And their parent say the exact same thing about older stuff. Really it's a constant of life that old people complain about younglins and their satanic immoral hobbies. It's unfortunate because we are currently on the beginning of the golden age of gaming, see: Dwarf Fortress. This game would be impossible 20 years ago.
You see, the problem I have with this exchange is that Dizzyelk wasn't saying just that "all new games suck", he offered up concrete examples.
If you go to the Elder Scrolls forums, and talk with the people there, you'll see plenty of complaints about how Morrowind was the high point of the series, and how the quests in general have become shallower and shallower as voice acting was added in, including more and more famous actors whose time costs lots of money.
In Morrowind, when they had speech trees, they didn't have to pay actors to all sound the same speaking them, it was all text, and they could have very deep and involved speech trees that reacted to your character statements. After they focused everything on making the game for the XBox 360 player who will play Skyrim for a week and has no interest in the mods that Bethesda basically ripped off, and declared as the official features they used to make their new game different from the games before it, then all the choices had to be tailored to fit a bloated speech library, which generally meant you had no options whatsoever in quests other than to simply ignore the quest markers and not complete them. All text was the same, completely regardless of what kind of character you were trying to play, which runs completely counter to the core idea of Elder Scrolls, which is that you were a total blank slate into which you could pour your own idea of what sort of character you wanted to be.
In favor of the pretty sounds and pretty graphics, they produced a still-buggy game that completely compromised its own core gameplay enjoyment that it was supposedly offering to the player. (Much like "Survival Horror" games that fail to be scary and make survival an easy and forgone conclusion...)
So yes, he's got a completely valid point when he shows you how Fallout 1 had really deep and involved conversation trees that actually reacted to what sort of character you were.
In fact, Arcanum went much further than that, and went out of its way to provide several completely different ways you could play through the entire game. You could not just go as a wizard, a technological genius from the magic vs. science war that was going on in the background of the game, or a melee specialist, you could also go as a thief who simply evaded all the problems and stole the things they needed from the villains instead of killing them for it, and you could go as a pure diplomat who talked their way out of all their problems. It was, in fact, entirely possible to talk the final boss out of his plans and into defeating himself. That was because the game was dedicated to the notion of giving you as many alternate ways to play the game as possible. It was its core gameplay that it offered players, and players loved the game for it.
Now, you see Deus Ex, which had positive crap graphics but much the same style of "almost any playstyle can potentially win, and there are at least 4 ways to solve any problem, from violence to stealth to technological cunning." Then Deus Ex Revolutions, which is a supposed sequel that supposedly tried to recapture that, but where you still have to fight all bosses in run-and-gun battles with no options for hackers or stealthers to gain advantages their purely combat-oriented counterparts don't have.
Now, take for example, EYE: Divine Cybermancy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr25RR6qGgM) - a game with utterly shit graphics, buggy as anything, and no play balance that was relatively recently released by some French indie band of developers. It's basically more a successor to the spirit of Deus Ex than Revolutions, since it manages to put together a game that offers very severely different types of playstyles into competition with one another for means to achieve your goals.
The real problem here isn't so much "new things suck" as it is "AAA games that are developed for appeal to the widest audience possible tend to lack all game depth", while the games that show real innovation and depth tend to be the games that are developed by smaller indie developers that are running on a shoestring budget, have crap graphics, tons of bugs, and not so much play balance, but whose ideas are far, far better than the stale, bland gruel of "ideas" that have been focus-tested to the largest audience possible because AAA developers need to make up their money spent on obsessively advanced graphics and Hollywood star voice actors by selling no less than 10 million units in the first week of release alone, and are going to do that on promos alone, not good game play or developing a dedicated user base.
Huh, you and your ridiculous "animal" noise.Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days.
Bah! You kids and your fancy pop! Music has been no good since the Baroque!
And you're probably older than me...
I quite disagree, its been nothing but a downhill slide ever since the first caveman banged two rocks together, and created the only TRUE music.
Quite. "Duh Duh Deh" was always my favorite.
Meh, new age mammal music that's never been up to par with the call of lizards.
I dont see how better graphical capabilities restrict creativity. I do, however generally also believe the good older games felt more creative. I think this is due to two reasons, the first is the smaller team, smaller teams seem to be able to put more heart into something instead of "comissioned" games. And also, because the ideas used were more original and fresh at the time.
No, older games were more creative in how they presented the game, because they didn't have the graphical capabilities that modern systems do.
Modern games seem to be glitz over story.
If the strength of your story, characters, and world outweigh the flaws, you have a good game.
As much as I agree with what you said here, my biggest problem is that Spore also failed to deliver on its most basic promise. I didn't really feel like I had shaped anything about my species beyond its appearance. Sure, I got to make it a meat eater, I got to make it aggressive, but these are the thinnest shell of what I had created. I gave my species wings it didn't use, I gave it poison spitters it didn't use. Why didn't I have the tribe of ultra-violent flying poison spitting bad-asses I had imagined?This was the issue with spore for me too. I can deal with the cartoonish graphics, and the lack of adherence to evolution. But many changes felt like they did nothing, and had no effect whatsoever. As fun as messing around with the creature creator is, once it leaves the creature creator, it seems all sort of pointless.
One of the core parts of RPGs, IMO, is the separation of character and player.Personally, I Dont like this. I would rather have some feel that I am my character, rather than some force pushing him around. I think RPG's should aim for the integration of the character and player, not the other way around.
and I, as the player, should have them highlighted for me.I always particularly disliked this element. I dont want stuff to glow in my face, its completely immersion breaking for me.
So yes, he's got a completely valid point when he shows you how Fallout 1 had really deep and involved conversation trees that actually reacted to what sort of character you were.
they focused everything on making the game for the XBox 360 player who will play Skyrim for a week.I think its a bit unfair to make the claim that most XBox 360 players of Skyrim will only play it for a week. Everyone I know has been playing for much longer than that.
All text was the same, completely regardless of what kind of character you were trying to play, which runs completely counter to the core idea of Elder Scrolls, which is that you were a total blank slate into which you could pour your own idea of what sort of character you wanted to be.
The real problem here isn't so much "new things suck" as it is "AAA games that are developed for appeal to the widest audience possible tend to lack all game depth".Some might counter this and say that if so many people bought the game, and buy the expansions, and buy the DLC, and etc, then they must be enjoying it, and that the AAA games must have done something right. I understand the awesomeness of personal appeal but...
by selling no less than 10 million units in the first week of release alone, and are going to do that on promos alone, not good game play or developing a dedicated user base.claiming that 10 million people bought (and enjoy) a game that lacks game play is a bit of a stretch, without invoking the "sheeple" argument to invalidate their clear enjoyment of the game.
If there are significant flaws, then the story and characters won't outweigh them. The games I had mentioned had flaws that, if the story and setting wasn't as good as it was, would make me hate the game. There was nothing more annoying in X-COM than the bug where parts of your base wouldn't be connected, and you had to blow the walls to get where the aliens were. Not only did it make me waste time, but resources. It seemed to happen to me at least half the times I had to fight a base defense mission. There's also the flaw where if you mind control a civilian to get them out of the line of fire during a terror mission, they'd turn hostile when they were released. Meaning you had to kill them, or the mission wouldn't end. And, the biggest of them all, the 80 item limit in combat. That's not enough for the large squads you could have at the end of the game to all have flares, grenades, weapons, reloads, and some medikits and scanners tossed in. And of course its subjective, everything is. Lots of people hate... lets say Twilight. Lots of people love it, as evidence by how much Twilight crap there is. There's a whole forum dedicated to a game that lots of people hate because its confusing and hard as hell to understand and get into, but lots of people love it because its the most in-depth world out there with amazing capabilities. Maybe you've heard of it, I think its called Dwarf Castle? Midget Fortress? Damn, I can't remember. :PIf the strength of your story, characters, and world outweigh the flaws, you have a good game.
This is also subjective. For me, I dont think any level of brilliant story or characters could outweigh any significan game flaws. It is the gameplay that the player spends 90% of the time dealing with. If this 90% is flawed...
Maybe its just that I came from being a pen and paper RPG background. But that separation is the important distinction between in-character and out-of-character knowledge. Other people at the table would call you on meta-gaming if your character used knowledge that they shouldn't have. And I feel that something like having the perception to see a trip line is in-character knowledge, and the highlighting is nothing more than a convention to pass it to you, the player. After all, in a P&P setting, the DM would roll against your spot stat, and if you fail, it would be one of those mysterious rolls that DMs do from time to time. And which worry you as a player. But if you pass, the DM would say you see a trip line, or a pressure plate, or whatever the trigger is.One of the core parts of RPGs, IMO, is the separation of character and player.Personally, I Dont like this. I would rather have some feel that I am my character, rather than some force pushing him around. I think RPG's should aim for the integration of the character and player, not the other way around.
Being on a forum for a game as dedicated to confusing detail as DF, I think its fair to say there are a few more hard-core gamers floating around here than usual. It isn't that AAA games didn't do anything right, its that there are no big title games dedicated to hard-core gamers. And, when stuff is designed by committee, as I'm sure most AAA titles are, you usually end up with, as Kohaku said, something developed to appeal to the widest audience possible, which means everything that's "hard" is easified, everything that's "confusing" is simplified, and you end up with a bland product that lots of people will like, yes, but not people who are devoted to the genre and looking for the challenge it offers.The real problem here isn't so much "new things suck" as it is "AAA games that are developed for appeal to the widest audience possible tend to lack all game depth".Some might counter this and say that if so many people bought the game, and buy the expansions, and buy the DLC, and etc, then they must be enjoying it, and that the AAA games must have done something right. I understand the awesomeness of personal appeal but...
But I dont see how it is possible to declare that old games are definetely better than new games. This always seems to fault on the "sheeple" argument. For personal opionion, of course. But as for trying to "prove" that old games are better, I dont understand.
How, exactly, is buying a game and enjoying it strictly related?[Citation needed]
As I said, the overwhelming majority of those players don't play Skyrim past 10-20 hours or gameplay. Meanwhile, there are people still playing Morrowind today with mods that add whole new regions into the game and overhaul the ruleset. Which of those two do you think got disposable pulp entertainment, and which really got a game they enjoyed?
He actually was talking about console gamers. If that makes a difference.How, exactly, is buying a game and enjoying it strictly related?[Citation needed]
As I said, the overwhelming majority of those players don't play Skyrim past 10-20 hours or gameplay. Meanwhile, there are people still playing Morrowind today with mods that add whole new regions into the game and overhaul the ruleset. Which of those two do you think got disposable pulp entertainment, and which really got a game they enjoyed?
For what is worth, I though Skyrim is brilliant and I'm eagerly awaiting for the PC release of the DLC. Everyone I know that have played the game enjoyed it immensely for hundreds of hours. I'm sure there are people who only played it for a few hours, but I doubt is a significant minority, let alone and overwhelming majority. But in any case, how is the amount of hours a game was played related to the "enjoyment" these people got?
This article says you are wrong. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/skyrim-pc-players-average-75-hours-of-playtime-6350045)
My response to this quote was, admittingly, probably reduntant. Given that the strength of characters/story etc are subjective and so are game flaws, the statement turns out to always be true.SnipIf the strength of your story, characters, and world outweigh the flaws, you have a good game.This is also subjective. For me, I dont think any level of brilliant story or characters could outweigh any significan game flaws. It is the gameplay that the player spends 90% of the time dealing with. If this 90% is flawed...
And you know what? Both of those are completely valid core gameplay elements to go after, and they're both perfectly valid measures of judging RPGs.Of course. I was saying that the quality of a game is purely subjective, that is doing the actual measurements depend on the person. Basically my post was a hasty attempt at expressing that the enjoyment of a game is purely dependent on the player (ie the "old games are better" concept doesn't seem to hold water when used as a sweeping statement. It is, of course entirely reasonalbe for someone to personally prefer older games to newer ones.).
I also found this. (https://twitter.com/BGS_Devs/statuses/187715996612702209)He actually was talking about console gamers. If that makes a difference.How, exactly, is buying a game and enjoying it strictly related?[Citation needed]
As I said, the overwhelming majority of those players don't play Skyrim past 10-20 hours or gameplay. Meanwhile, there are people still playing Morrowind today with mods that add whole new regions into the game and overhaul the ruleset. Which of those two do you think got disposable pulp entertainment, and which really got a game they enjoyed?
For what is worth, I though Skyrim is brilliant and I'm eagerly awaiting for the PC release of the DLC. Everyone I know that have played the game enjoyed it immensely for hundreds of hours. I'm sure there are people who only played it for a few hours, but I doubt is a significant minority, let alone and overwhelming majority. But in any case, how is the amount of hours a game was played related to the "enjoyment" these people got?
This article says you are wrong. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/skyrim-pc-players-average-75-hours-of-playtime-6350045)
How, exactly, is buying a game and enjoying it strictly related?[Citation needed]
As I said, the overwhelming majority of those players don't play Skyrim past 10-20 hours or gameplay. Meanwhile, there are people still playing Morrowind today with mods that add whole new regions into the game and overhaul the ruleset. Which of those two do you think got disposable pulp entertainment, and which really got a game they enjoyed?
For what is worth, I though Skyrim is brilliant and I'm eagerly awaiting for the PC release of the DLC. Everyone I know that have played the game enjoyed it immensely for hundreds of hours. I'm sure there are people who only played it for a few hours, but I doubt is a significant minority, let alone and overwhelming majority. But in any case, how is the amount of hours a game was played related to the "enjoyment" these people got?
This article says you are wrong. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/skyrim-pc-players-average-75-hours-of-playtime-6350045)
He actually was talking about console gamers. If that makes a difference.
Of course. I was saying that the quality of a game is purely subjective, that is doing the actual measurements depend on the person. Basically my post was a hasty attempt at expressing that the enjoyment of a game is purely dependent on the player (ie the "old games are better" concept doesn't seem to hold water when used as a sweeping statement. It is, of course entirely reasonalbe for someone to personally prefer older games to newer ones.).
Holy wall of text batman!
Eh skyrim was ok but rather shallow, nothing compared to good old morrowind.
The scenery was breathteaking but the playable world was so small it's hard to get immersed in.
Feels more like an rpg turned theme park ride in the end, rush you into the story and throw tons of quests at you all at once.
Still good fun but nostalgia asides not the rpg morrowind was imo.
Not much more to add other then that. Other then agreeing improved graphics often leave the rest of a game to be desired. No point on making a good game if people are content with shiny graphics.
And ofcourse less risk involved in trying to be creative and innovative. Can't really mass produce in a creative manner either.
I'm mostly posting in surprise as to how the topic came to this. :P Not that it's not worth discussing offcourse
Personally I prefer DLC over mods most of the time, they are made by professionals and generally higher quality than mods (horse armor aside). Mods and DLC are both great for gaming and they show that new is better, but that's a point I'm not interested to argue at the moment.
Holy wall of text batman!
Do you have a better source than the Bethesda forums? Because that is basically anecdotal evidence and doesn't help your point. The anecdotal evidence I posted earlier was about console players actually, I'm the only PC gamer in my group.
RE: Your DLC vs Mod rant. Personally I prefer DLC over mods most of the time, they are made by professionals and generally higher quality than mods (horse armor aside). Mods and DLC are both great for gaming and they show that new is better, but that's a point I'm not interested to argue at the moment.
There is going to be a lot of DLC hate now so I'll move on, but I'm just going to add that buying DLC is a good way to reward developers making games I love and a way to extend the fun I had have with a game. Of course there will be crappy DLC just as there will still be crappy games. This is the way of life.
If I try Googling for average hours, I just get hundreds of reports of the same things - either 85 hours overall for april, or 75 hours for just the PC in February. I take it that, in recognition of the PC/Console flamewars, they didn't want to put out the comparison numbers, but again, I seriously doubt that PC players have only added 10 hours on average to their playtimes in two months.
Spending a lot of time arguing about a subject doesn't magically turn you into the authority of the subject, made up numbers are still made up even after repeating them a thousand times. No offence but I prefer to believe in a quote from Bethesda than one from you, unless you work for Microsoft or Valve.
It would be interesting to see play times of Morrowind vs Skyrim (except Morrowind never recorded that, so its never going to happen). I have a feeling the trends would probably look quite similar, with the majority of players playing for mostly 50 hours or less, and a smaller number of die-hards playing for hundreds.
Also I would have considered 85 hours a long time playing a game...
You have already demonstrated that you don't care about evidence or an informed debate, so educate yourself, or don't. I'll try to find better debate elsewhere.I know they exist, but I'm just not going to spend the time it takes finding them. If you care that much, you look it up and prove me wrong.
I stand by what I said - they wouldn't have only mentioned PC gamers having an average of 75 hours, and then wait months to announce the average across all platforms was up to 85 if it weren't for the fact that they knew PC gamers made up the bulk of those playing for the long-haul, and XBox as the bulk of the short-term buys.
You can look over the press releases from Bethesda to get the breakdown of where sales were, what platform they were primarily developing for, and how sales on PC continue for years after you can't even buy a used copy of the XBox version.
I know they exist, but I'm just not going to spend the time it takes finding them. If you care that much, you look it up and prove me wrong.It would be interesting to see play times of Morrowind vs Skyrim (except Morrowind never recorded that, so its never going to happen). I have a feeling the trends would probably look quite similar, with the majority of players playing for mostly 50 hours or less, and a smaller number of die-hards playing for hundreds.
Also I would have considered 85 hours a long time playing a game...
"Hundreds" isn't as much as you think. I've clocked in 233 hours into Skyrim already, and I haven't really played it since January. (I've been meaning to get back around to modding it now that the SDK is out, but got sucked into doing DF stuff instead.)
I've easily put one or two thousand hours into Oblivion (and DF, for that matter), so "hundreds" isn't that much for a game as wildly moddable as TES.
Name yourself Urwa Doomed Doomed the Doomed Doom of Doom And die by a crossbowmanThis is actually the most on-topic post in a while. That said, aquire band of companions, each with their own personal problems that they're worried might get in the way of the mission, but never do. (They do that themselves)