I have /never/ been so entranced. They have achieved Suspension of Disbelief with this product. Complete suspension of disbelief. I am on the verge of an unhealthy all night session but that irritating thing called work is getting in the way.
Guys, if any game magazine editor ever gets wind of this program you will be quite pleased. It's only a matter of time before EA or some other big publisher notices your work and promptly dumps cash into your lap along with a producer to polish this off and put it on shelves. This game could easily be as big as Sim City in terms of sales.
Why, oh why don't I have lottery winnings to buy artists, coders, and marketing ppl to help you two get this concept onto store shelves.
This is an extremely commercially viable product. I can't believe it hasn't been scooped up by a game publisher.
Have you two been approched by publishers yet?
quote:
Originally posted by Rattyboy:
Guys, if any game magazine editor ever gets wind of this program you will be quite pleased. It's only a matter of time before EA or some other big publisher notices your work and promptly dumps cash into your lap along with a producer to polish this off and put it on shelves. This game could easily be as big as Sim City in terms of sales.
FUCK that.
And DF has been in major magazines before, and thus far hasn't attracted any sort of publishing deal, as far as I know. I'm not even sure that Toady would accept something like that - DF isn't a mainstream game that can be put in a box and sold off a shelf. It's too left field. DF is the game everyone wishes they were making, but don't have the balls, audience or dedication to make.
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Dasleah ]
quote:
FUCK that.
I agree with the OP here , Df will make millions if it ever gets the chance.
The only way I would feel comfortable with DF getting sponsored would be if Tarn still had total authority over what goes into (and what doesn't) his game. And I know the only way he's going to do that is if he's actually the one working the code, as I can't imagine him being the kind of person who would be alright with someone else doing the work, even if he did give explicit instructions.
Yeah, mainstream publishing isn't really suited for Dwarf Fortress at the moment... Maybe at some point in the future it might be the right direction, but certainly not as it is now. There's just too much that Tarn Adams needs to put in with his special touch.
If you do get some lottery winnings, just donate them directly. It would go to much more good use.
quote:
Originally posted by Dasleah:
<STRONG>Graphics alone make DF completely unmarketable to the unwashed masses. The average gamer is incredibly shallow - if the screenshots aren't interesting, then they just spend their money elsewhere. And yeah, I'm sure by saying that I'll get a bunch of people quoting me going 'blah blah blah three dee is oar-sum, DF shuld be 3d coz itd be kewl, kthxbye' so in advance I'll just say NAR! to them and ignore their feeble attempts to convince me otherwise.
</STRONG>
Now *THIS* is the cancer that is killing the B12 forum.
"Boohoohoo the other gamers are shallow idiots their inferior savage minds could never comprehend high-caste patrician things such as DF! *Ignores the fact that so many people are downloading it that it needs four separate mirrors because the main site was in danger of using all it's bandwidth*"
The DF page seriously needs a download counter so people can stop acting like the only civilized people in a sea of barbaric Saxons, Huns, and Germans.
At no point in my post did I state that I believe people who can play DF are any better or worse people than those that don't - I'm just saying that with the graphics DF currently has, the assumption that many people are going make about it is that it's an old game, a bad game, or a game for nostalgic old fuddy-duddies. That's just a simple fact - you wouldn't be able to market a game like DF. How many roguelikes do you see on the shelves these days that haven't been given a graphical hike, like Diablo? How many game reviews do you see of mediocre games (Far Cry, Crysis, Halo 3) that still manage to score 10/10 because they look good? The gaming 'industry' isn't about gaming these days - it's about selling tech demos that people can feel good about because they can turn the settings on it all they way up to 10 and thus justify the thousands upon thousands of dollars they spent on their desktops. Gameplay does not sell a game. Screenshots and hype does.
If you put DF on the shelves, it would sell. Not fast, not in any great numbers, but it would sell. Some people would get interested in it and discover the game that we all know and love, but most people would fire it up once - without ever reading the manual - start playing it like an RTS and get angry when the game doesn't lower itself to accommodate their own impatience and stupidity. And DF shouldn't be that game. It shouldn't have to dumb itself down to make the Halo fanbois feel good about themselves and their a-button-smashing habits.
quote:
Originally posted by Dasleah:
<STRONG>Wow, that came out of nowhere.At no point in my post did I state that I believe people who can play DF are any better or worse people than those that don't - I'm just saying that with the graphics DF currently has, the assumption that many people are going make about it is that it's an old game, a bad game, or a game for nostalgic old fuddy-duddies. That's just a simple fact </STRONG>
Because noone ever bought Europa Universalis, Mount and Blade,and the hundreds of other modern games that look like something that came out of 1999-2004.
You're like the TV exec's who assume their audience are completely stupid mongoloids who just want to watch 30 minutes of flashy visual effects, Space Hookers, and out of order episodes.
Your elite and snobbish thinking coupled with condescension is why most normal people avoid the Indie scene.
You're the type of person who refuses to vote for a candidate because he is "unelectable".
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: subject name here ]
quote:
Because noone ever bought Europa Universalis, Mount and Blade,and the hundreds of other modern games that look like something that came out of 1999-2004.You're like the TV exec's who assume their audience are completely stupid mongoloids who just want to watch 30 minutes of flashy visual effects, Space Hookers, and out of order episodes.
Your elite and snobbish thinking coupled with condescension is why most normal people avoid the Indie scene.
You're the type of person who refuses to vote for a candidate because he is "unelectable".
Obvious flamebait is: obvious :roll:
Look, it's obvious that we just don't share a common ground on this issue. I obviously don't have the faith in humanity that you do.
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Dasleah ]
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."
Umiman, Boom Blox cannot erase the years upon years of torture, desecration and horror that EA has inflicted upon the gaming world. But yes, Boom Blox is cool.
quote:
Originally posted by subject name here:
<STRONG>Because noone ever bought Europa Universalis, Mount and Blade,and the hundreds of other modern games that look like something that came out of 1999-2004.
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: subject name here ]</STRONG>
... I'm staying out of this one, except to add that I've never heard of either of those.
quote:
If you put DF on the shelves, it would sell.
A folly.
Anyways, you know why DF hasn't be picked up by a publisher, and won't be for quite some time? It's the same reason why there is no other game out there like DF. I'm not one of those idiots who seem to think indie > funded games just because one happens to be away from "the man", but I can guarantee you, though gamers love DF, companies would not. Such is the fate of almost ever Roguelike out there. Games like DF are only possible BECAUSE of independent developers.
A publisher doesn't just shovel money into your lap. They control you. They tell you who can work for you now. They give you deadlines. They censor things, tell you to get rid of things, add things they think are marketable. They change everything, and they have you by the balls with that little check you cashed.
There's a reason companies like EA get so much hate. They're not in it for the product, just for the money. It's cliche, but true.
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: SirPenguin ]
quote:
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
<STRONG>Subject, since you love mankind so much. Come over here to Southern Ohio and take a spin as a bagger at the local grocery mart. Before I did, I truly thought there might be a few smart people left in the non-internet.A folly.</STRONG>
I would just like to point out that if someone has to move from one place to another simply to prove a point when it hasn't been proven to them in their place of origin, it does not serve as any real evidence. Perspective is heavily dependant upon location, and moving to a different area works both ways.
Also, (as always) I think everyone is making just a LITTLE too much of a deal out of this, because I can't quite see any major company being willing to buy a game like DF, and I don't see Toady as willing to sell.
This game can not be subject to the standard development crunch, because it is being crafted with love by a true artisan. Perhaps once Toady feels the game is complete he will look for a publisher. Perhaps not. It is not for us to say.
What it boils down to is this: If you love the game in progress, donate. It's the donations that allow Toady to spend so much time with this project, rather than doing the 9-5 grind to which the rest of us are subject.
As for the apparent "flame war" in this thread, it seems to just be one person attempting to start trouble, so don't worry about it. It just so happens that many of those who follow gaming and game development have very strong feelings in regards to EA in particular.
Rattyboy, I for one welcome you to Dwarf Fortress! You seem to be having some measure of success with the game, which is fantastic for a newcomer. I spent two weeks pouring over the forums and the wiki before I ever generated a world. That being said, feel free to ask questions! Despite what you may have seen in this thread, we're all friendly and happy to help. Also, in case you haven't found it yet, here is a link to the DF Wiki.
And no, this isn't an elitist statement. Not everyone likes everything and to have mass appeal you have to remove stuff that others don't like. And a lot of people hate DF's complexity. You can find comments of people who loved 2D DF but hated the addition of the z-axis and stopped playing. There's also people that hate how Toady is doing his work and wish him to stop adding features, close the game, and start fixing all the bugs left. That's clearly not my case since I keep adding suggestions.
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Zemat ]
quote:
Originally posted by Kagus:
<STRONG>Has SNH ever actually contributed to these forums? Every time I see him he's just doing a troll impression.Umiman, Boom Blox cannot erase the years upon years of torture, desecration and horror that EA has inflicted upon the gaming world. But yes, Boom Blox is cool.</STRONG>
You contribute to forums just by posting, you don't have to make a million stories that noone will ever read to be a "contributer", this isn't Wikipedia it's an internets forums.
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: subject name here ]
In any case, welcome to the forums. Don't worry, we're not always this... Well, irritable.
Okay, so maybe we are. But we're not always this irritated.
also, thanks to all those in this thread I have now added to my:
**Always Ignore**
list of forum posters. your helping to streamline my forum reading time! thanks!
PS: THANKS TO THE 2 ADAMS FOR THE WHOLE BUNCH OF AWESOMENESS_BEYOND QUALITY_WIN that is DWARF FORTRESS!
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Gorjo MacGrymm of Clan MacGrymm ]
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Gorjo MacGrymm of Clan MacGrymm ]
Wow, way of topic here.......................... my fail
quote:
Originally posted by subject name here:
Because noone ever bought Europa Universalis, Mount and Blade,and the hundreds of other modern games that look like something that came out of 1999-2004.You're like the TV exec's who assume their audience are completely stupid mongoloids who just want to watch 30 minutes of flashy visual effects, Space Hookers, and out of order episodes.
Your elite and snobbish thinking coupled with condescension is why most normal people avoid the Indie scene.
You're the type of person who refuses to vote for a candidate because he is "unelectable".
Please NO. My wife is Kalmikian girl, a descendant of mongolian people. That's nothing wrong with her IQ (and her family and the like).
I respect you much less now (but I think the person who use racial comparison like this doesn't care about a respect of others).
[EDIT] removed some swearing, I don't want to insult you despite I threw a tantrum reading this.
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Deon ]
quote:
Originally posted by Deon:
<STRONG>Please NO. My wife is Kalmikian girl, a descendant of mongolian people. That's nothing wrong with her IQ (and her family and the like).
I respect you much less now (but I think the person who use racial comparison like this doesn't care about a respect of others).
[EDIT] removed some swearing, I don't want to insult you even if I was threw tantrum reading this.[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Deon ]</STRONG>
Mongoloid can also mean a person with Down's Syndrome.
Sorry for hurting your precious, precious feelings Sunshine.
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: subject name here ]
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Deon ]
quote:
Originally posted by Willfor:
<STRONG>Being condescending and using racial/intelligence based slurs really helps your image as a non-elitist. :)" in your post, it helps to understand that it is just a joke. =)
(The word "alphabet" is now my dangling preposition safety net)
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]
quote:
Originally posted by subject name here:
<STRONG>Because noone ever bought Europa Universalis, Mount and Blade,and the hundreds of other modern games that look like something that came out of 1999-2004.
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: subject name here ]</STRONG>
I bought all three Europa Universalis's. And Crusader Kings. And Victoria. But I guess that's also why I play DF.
Also, is it me or has the aggression on this forum shot up over the last few weeks?
quote:
Originally posted by Rictus:
<STRONG>
Also, is it me or has the aggression on this forum shot up over the last few weeks?</STRONG>
Rage! Moshpit! Woohoo! ...guys? ... hey a tumbeweed...
Also, it's not just any flame war, it's a spy check
well, guess no spies here..
quote:
Originally posted by Dasleah:
<STRONG>Wow, that came out of nowhere.At no point in my post did I state that I believe people who can play DF are any better or worse people than those that don't - I'm just saying that with the graphics DF currently has, the assumption that many people are going make about it is that it's an old game, a bad game, or a game for nostalgic old fuddy-duddies. That's just a simple fact - you wouldn't be able to market a game like DF. How many roguelikes do you see on the shelves these days that haven't been given a graphical hike, like Diablo? How many game reviews do you see of mediocre games (Far Cry, Crysis, Halo 3) that still manage to score 10/10 because they look good? The gaming 'industry' isn't about gaming these days - it's about selling tech demos that people can feel good about because they can turn the settings on it all they way up to 10 and thus justify the thousands upon thousands of dollars they spent on their desktops. Gameplay does not sell a game. Screenshots and hype does.
If you put DF on the shelves, it would sell. Not fast, not in any great numbers, but it would sell. Some people would get interested in it and discover the game that we all know and love, but most people would fire it up once - without ever reading the manual - start playing it like an RTS and get angry when the game doesn't lower itself to accommodate their own impatience and stupidity. And DF shouldn't be that game. It shouldn't have to dumb itself down to make the Halo fanbois feel good about themselves and their a-button-smashing habits.</STRONG>
Agreed, I personally believe that the best thing that could happen would be the anno-type of sales.
Also, not a single graphic card could generate all that what is needed for such an audience. (Yes, they DO WANT INTENSE GRAPHICS!)
I personally would probably buy it, once it hits the 10-15 euros counter (down from 60-65, I'm budget ^^)
nb.(Too bad anno-1701 got fucked due to neglectance of the battle system)
quote:
Originally posted by umiman:
<STRONG>But... but... EA made Boom Blox. And Boom Blox is cool :/</STRONG>
Kinda makes me think of Toble, you should google it, its fun :)
quote:
Originally posted by McDoomhammer:
<STRONG>
... I'm staying out of this one, except to add that I've never heard of either of those.</STRONG>
Getting back on topic though; I wouldn't really trust DF in the hands of anyone besides Toady and ThreeToe. Maybe an artist, but that will come in time. I'm perfectly happy with a text based interface.
And subject name here, you can't deny that the average gamer wouldn't even give DF a chance. To me the average gamer is someone who mostly plays console FPSs and possibly a Blizzard game or two. Those games are all pretty user-friendly. Dwarf Fortress is not user friendly. Dwarf Fortress wants you to die over and over again, and it takes a lot of effort (or masochism) to make DF fun. An average gamer doesn't have the time or patience for that. It's frustrating when someone doesn't understand that because it usually seems like they're trying to be ignorant jerks.
Uh, I'm done. Hi guys. >_>
Truthfully I'm more curious to see if his ideas and gameplay seep into other games - either with a subtle nature - or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
<STRONG>
(The word "alphabet" is now my dangling preposition safety net)
</STRONG>
Honey, you can dangle my prepositions any night of the week...
quote:
Originally posted by Gorjo MacGrymm of Clan MacGrymm:
<STRONG>Anyone notice the OP hasnt responded to any of this? Poor Lunatic.also, thanks to all those in this thread I have now added to my:
**Always Ignore**
list of forum posters. your helping to streamline my forum reading time! thanks!
</STRONG>
Are you twelve, or just a moron?
Wish he didn't have to though.
quote:
Originally posted by Deon:
<STRONG>I think it helps your image as a "d&mbass" =).
I like the " :)" in your post, it helps to understand that it is just a joke. =)</STRONG>
This thread certainly got out of hand quickly, huh?
quote:
Originally posted by Torak:
<STRONG>
Are you twelve, or just a moron?</STRONG>
oh - definately MORON. *dances a moronic jig*
*puts on cap with propeller on top*
*runs in circles screaming "whheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"*
*pukes on self and gets too dizzy and falls down*
*wants to do it again*
waiiiiiiiiit, maybe i AM twelve...OMG
back to topic:
game developers do great things, they give us much joy in life, without them we really wouldnt have didly squat, they helped create this gaming industry giant without which most indie wouldnt even exist. and yes they constantly screw up good games, but hey, its a business and profit is the goal (and we keep giving them that profit). no one gets a job/starts a company to lose money.
We should all donate uber win money to Toady so he can market it himself to the stores. that would be freakin sweet. stick it to the man!
IMO - I agree most game buyers dont want "bad graphics" or "steep learning curve" games. Many people want to play something for a few minutes, possibly an hour or two to pass some time and then put it down until they have some other free time. Then there are gamers like me who waste way too much freakin time with games and due to over-exposure has become dulled to the lure of "shiny graphic thingy's". not because I think they are poor quality but because there are so many of them and they all start looking the same ......... IMO Toady's juggernaut (damn, funny movie) would sell to the clientele who, like me, listen to those like themseleves about what they have discovered as Great Games (no matter the publisher/source) and then purchase/donate (to) the game.
I dont think i am actually saying anything here more than just blah blah as far as the OP's topic is concerened. *sigh*
*pedals home*
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Gorjo MacGrymm of Clan MacGrymm ]
[ June 10, 2008: Message edited by: Gorjo MacGrymm of Clan MacGrymm ]
The reason the game is the way that it IS is because that it hasn't been rushed by money-grubbing corporate shit-machines that only cater to the gamer who has lots of money and wants a game to play quickly and easily. This game requires a challenge to learn; most people won't like that.
quote:I cant cuz im gone 4 realz ths time srsly!!!!
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
<STRONG>Wow, this thread has everything. Escaped Lunatics, EA-Bashing, Racism, Flamewars, Innuendo, all we need is a Fenrir appear/vanish.</STRONG>
Damn, I should have let myself be forgotten. It would have been better than to be remembered for this.
quote:
Originally posted by subject name here:
<STRONG>Human Moderators are useless. Manflesh always serves it's own interests, Manflesh must be replaced with Robot Moderator then life will be fair.</STRONG>
To be "personnel" you gots to be PERSON. I iz FURRY, vitch is BETTER. (inspiration from here!)
It you had elected ME mod I'd have closed this thread PAGES ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
<STRONG>Wow, this thread has everything. Escaped Lunatics, EA-Bashing, Racism, Flamewars, Innuendo, all we need is a Fenrir appear/vanish.</STRONG>
Well, actually there's no racism in this thread. There was just a mis-understanding. And as long as we have some increased aggression usually it's caused by someone in a "too-much-booze" condition.
I mean, come on! You really think someone who likes EA that much would like Dwarf Fortress as much as he claims to? Then there's the simple fact that he hasn't posted again even once.
YOU ALL LOSE THE THREAD!!! I WIN!!!
:D
(Oh, and Mount & Blade is excellent. You can download it and play it as a demo before comitting to a purchase. Europa Universalis is another stunning game, well worth it if you like grand strategy at all.)
(Oh-2, Welcome to Dwarf Fortress, Rattyboy.)
I've had an offer to sell DF for $20 on an online site here or there, and a company I hadn't heard of offered to do a front-end, but I haven't been approached by any of the large corporations. I'm pretty much opposed to anything along those lines, since I'd prefer to keep control of the project, and I assume a publishing contract will generally entail loss of control. They are the ones assuming the risk on their investment after all.
Also, the Siege engine is perfect for DF. :)
quote:
I WILL BE THE MODERATOR FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM AND CRUSH ALL REBELLION WITH AN IRON FIST.
I would vote for you (if there's an election), real talk.
EDIT: page 4 snypah
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Krash ]
Also, am I still the only one who realizes that the OP was just trying to start a flame war?
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]
quote:
Originally posted by Toady One:
<STRONG>I'm pretty much opposed to anything along those lines, since I'd prefer to keep control of the project, and I assume a publishing contract will generally entail loss of control. They are the ones assuming the risk on their investment after all.</STRONG>
On the other hand, the way you develop is completely incompatible with any game business model I've ever heard of (except the one you're using now). Having people pay for releases immediately forces you to decide which releases people should pay for, since obviously nobody is going to be happy paying for every one, and paying just once might be unsustainable - and so on and so forth. Easier to stick with what works for as long as it works.
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Sindai ]
quote:
Originally posted by Toady One:
<STRONG>Is everything okay in here? People shouldn't yell at each other and stuff. It is probably best if the first reply to a new poster isn't "FUCK that." I'd like new people to feel like they can hang around, even if there are disagreements on some point or another.</STRONG>
I'd like to point out it was the EA part I was saying "FUCK that" to. I thought bolding it would make it a lot more obvious that was exactly what I was suggesting that towards.
quote:
Originally posted by Torak:
<STRONG>I'd like to point out it was the EA part I was saying "FUCK that" to. I thought bolding it would make it a lot more obvious that was exactly what I was suggesting that towards.</STRONG>
I for one thought that was obvious... EA did crush the Black and White series with as much incoherent thrashing about as a sugar-deprived pre-schooler. So much potential... So much lost...
Creature combat was really nice too. The rest of the game sucked. The creature teaching was too obvious, with the messages, I liked the abstract teaching of the old game, where you actually felt like it was sentient. Now it's just slap it until it says it won't do it again, or pet it until it does it constantly. Peter Molyneux's games have really gone downhill. Fable was a joke, and I doubt Fable 2 is going to be better.
quote:
Originally posted by The13thRonin:
<STRONG>I for one thought that was obvious... EA did crush the Black and White series with as much incoherent thrashing about as a sugar-deprived pre-schooler. So much potential... So much lost...</STRONG>
Not to mention grabbing Warhammer Online by the balls. The game was supposed to be released, what, like 2 years ago? It's constantly being delayed. Word on the street is EA is keeping it held back so that it doesn't have to compete with WoW as much...then Blizzard went and said, "Yeah well, we're releasing WotLK around the same time you do."
Good times.
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]
EA: Evil Arts... Hm, it doesn't really have much of a ring to it.
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Jamuk ]
EA would likely want to recast DF as a Dungeon Keeper title to start off with, and then they'd want to maximise sales by stripping out content that pick-up-and-play gamers struggle with.
-Angry Lawyer
quote:
Originally posted by Angry Lawyer:
<STRONG>Also, consider the flattening of the Dungeon Keeper franchise. EA wanted DK3 to be an RTS in the vein of Starcraft, apparently, before canning it.EA would likely want to recast DF as a Dungeon Keeper title to start off with, and then they'd want to maximise sales by stripping out content that pick-up-and-play gamers struggle with.
-Angry Lawyer</STRONG>
I enjoyed Dungeon Keeper 2 a great deal and was bothered that 3 never came out. Still, I could easily see EA killing a game like DF. EA tends towards design by committee, which cancels out inspiration and things that only single people or small like-minded groups crank out.
Plus they'd make it Xbox exclusive or something, and you'd end up with beautiful 3d graphics as you control a single dwarf that kills goblins and megabeasts in a third-person action adventure game that is inexplicably named "Dwarf Fortress" despite the lack of fortresses or any relation to this game.
quote:Well, for one the Siege engine is seamless, allowing for easy adventurer travel, and cell-based, which means every scrap of landscape is a pre-formed cubicle that is very fast and easy to load. Add some clever tinkering to that and you'll have "cheap dynamic landscape" ideal for per-tile digging as in DF. The combat system is pretty basic in DS, but that doesn't mean that's the limit. DS can show reasonable detail, including changing looks as equipment changes, at the same time being fairly low-spec. It's already got the same RP system that buffs the skills and stats you excercise most. All in all, it's probably the best engine any roguelike could ask for. Too bad DS2 was much less of a roguelike, but that's beside the point.
Originally posted by Ioric Kittencuddler:
<STRONG>Heh... I can't imagine the developers of Dungeon Siege publishing a game like Dwarf Fortress. Aside from a fantasy setting and lots of violence the games are so completely opposed in terms of gameplay that it's... hard to imagine the company that made one publishing the other. Also isn't GPG a developer and not a publisher anyway? If the game ever gets released as a retail product you should get a non-exclusive deal and you should definitely put it on Stardock and not just Steam. Steam is great and all but it's got allot of issues and it's DRM can get really annoying at times.[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]</STRONG>
quote:
Originally posted by Kagus:
<STRONG>I miss Bullfrog... The Dungeon Keeper series was awesome, and I was so excited about the third one...</STRONG>
Quoted for Truth. Bullfrog was just one of those developers, you know? They could do everything - well, apparently everything but maintain a solid business platform. But man, the hours I wasted in Theme Park and Theme Hospital as a kid. Oh, and Syndicate....
I think I got the gist of it by page 2.5 though.
A flame war about hating EA has started, someone is complaining about American politics (ie. not voting b/c someone is unelectable), and then there is the general discussion about indie gaming vs commercial.
I SERIOUSLY apologise for not chiming back in before this thread got way, way out of hand.
Let me respond.
1. Evil Commercial Game publishers?
EA may be evil. I honestly don't know. Most of their releases lately have been as much fun as learning how to do anything on an AIX server. Honestly, nor do I really care what they do. They seriously dropped off of my radar with 2 poor titles: Black & White II and then the last 2 years of FIFA Football (or soccer in the states) games. I spend my money on quality where I can find it.
2. Should DF go published?
Well, I don't know. Someone said that this game has been crafted out of love. I couldn't agree more. I certainly couldn't agree more. A good game for old foggies like me (I'm 35) is graded the same way I grade film and fiction in general. I put a huge emphasis on suspension of disbelief (SOD).
<diatribe>
SOD is very, very hard to achieve even in glitzy titles like Halo / Half life, etc. SOD is when you are no longer sitting on your bed watching The Butterfly Effect on TV. You are feeling empathy for the characters and have an emotional investment in their future and actions. The same thing happens when reading. You aren't in your car on a lunch break reading The Doomsday Book. You are worried about a small medieval village that suddenly gets exposed to the plague. You don't want the village priest or the little girls who are so loving and helpful to the main character to get it.
And when I play a game like DF, I am NOT in my bed in a crappy motel in NY. I am a ruler of a kingdom, an architect, and in some ways a tyrant. I take personal interest in my top dwarves who started the fortress and make sure they get dibs on leadership positions. I get irritated and worried when food supplies run low as winter approaches.
I escape.
That's what fiction is about. Whether it is film, literature, or a game, fiction is good when it transports people out of the world we live in.
</diatribe>
3. Should the adamses be given jobs by a commercial publisher?
I think the developers deserve to be scooped up and put into positions of creative design at commercial game houses. I really do. They could provide many, many new works of art with sponsorship. If I were working for a game house as a producer, they would both instantly get put into creative director positions over any resource management projects. And I say so based solely on the work they have done here.
Most game devs end up getting their 1st gig on a rip off of tetris and maybe some modifications to existing games. It's like getting a job in hollywood -- tough.
I honestly think that DF's devs have a God given gift for crafting a game. Nevermind the graphics. I love the ANSI (or is it ASCII... hmm...). But I obviously grew up playing Zork and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on Commodore 64's and so I don't mind the lack of graphics.
4. Would graphics help the game?
I don't know. That's something you should ask the dev's. It may hurt it. It may not. If done right, it may help. Sadly, there is a much greater chance it will be done wrong. Most games screw up when trying paradigm shifts without a dictator for creative design and a very talented coder base.
5. Do indie games gone commercial suck?
Hmm. Diablo... sucked. (Rogue / Nethack was better). I absolutely died when I played Diablo. Everyone freaked out and it sold well, "Wow... you have to try it, man. It's kewl." My response: nethack. I had played this game before, just in an older form. And my personal spin is Nethack > Rogue > Diablo.
Another indie story: Stars! Stars! was a game written by 2 jeff's (why is it good inde games are written by ppl who share a name?). The jeffs had an incredible user base. They even charged for the game. People played this game like it was a religion. It was a wonderful play by email game about space warfare. It was incredible. Then... Empire bought it. They bought it and made a few minor changes and stuck it on store shelves.
Then all of a sudden development on the next release died. Presumably b/c of poor shelf sales. I saw it in bargain bins within 30 days. The Jeffs seemed to disappear and well... now it's kinda tough to find a stars game that isn't being run by people who can beat 16 opponents with their eyes shut because they have been playing for 16 years.
My last example of indie gone public sucking is the MMORPG disaster. I discovered the crack addicty world of MUDs with Darkover (look them up on mudconnector). I was hooked good for about a year, then kind of moved on to the commercial Dragonrealms game. Once the d00dz arrived at Dragonrealms (snotty kids who play from 3pm to 1 am every day of the week, I quit. THen, when Everquest came out I was kicking myself. I -knew- that a graphical mud would make millions. And EQ was a graphical mud. A ----crappy---- graphical mud. MUDs and the usenet were the crack of the 90s for many, many people just getting onto the internet. Once AOL let their hoard loose on the net, none of them really knew about usenet or MUDs. If I had had the money or the connections at 23 years of age in the 90s, I would have dumped every ounce of energy into making a graphical mud. Sony did it with EQ and made millions.
EQ still sucked... but hey, it was money.
6. Do commercial game corps stifle creativity once they buy something?
I hate to say it, but my own experience in coprorate America has taught me that creativity is punished in most corpoations after they achieve multi-million dollar profits. Even if it's only 2 or 3 million. That comes from working for the FAA and 3 different private corporations that make multi millions. The one exception to that is working for Budweiser. Yes, I worked for one of their distributors. Lack of creativity = death in the beer biz. My heart will always be with the Busch family and the family that owned the distributorship I worked for. If you want a rewarding career, go to your local Bud bewery or Distributorship with a CDL and have at it. They don't pay well, but they treat employees like gold. The only way to lose your job at Budweiser is to steal from the company or get a DUI. Great corp.
Every other multi-million dollar biz I've worked for (including one $500M biz) was evil and stifled creativity.
The only way DF would work commercially is if it got a 3d engine AND did not lose ANY of the features present in its current form. Now, that is a $5M project to do right. You would need about 10 artists for 3 months, maybe 50 developers for a year, sound engineers, a storyboard, level designers for ppl who don't like sandbox mode, beta testers, $1M to buy an existing 3d engine that you can mod, and then the rest on some marketing that may or may not work. Ideally $20M to have the cash to burn on marketing. It would have to be perfect, not thrown together like some titles.
Now... I say it would have to have graphics. Well, that's b/c "kids today" have no imagination. That's why most fiction writers have day jobs. It's tough to get them to buy anything. It would just have to have graphics to succeed against the other titles on the shelves.
$20M could make it happen. If the publisher could sell it at $35 / copy retail $50 / copy download, 100,000 copies would make $4M. It would be a chance, but this could be as big as Civilization. I would invest $20M in doing it right on the hopes that it will sell 800k copies or even just break even on 1st release. 2nd release would be all gravy.
Anyway.
Sorry for the long post.
I'm not offended by anything anyone has said here. I think the debate is healthy. :)
And I accept your welcome to the DF world. WHere's my needle, I must tap the vein... It puts the lotion on it's skin and then puts the bottle in the basket... The winter is coming. I must prepare my fortress. We will make money next year. And if I find that kobold who keeps ripping us off I'm going to put him in a cage. Oooh. My trapmaster has told me this is possible. We must dig a pit and prepare for his capture. He will be back. They always come back.
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Rattyboy ]
Anyway, Dwarf Fortress can't really be published since it is nowhere near done. Technically it is still in alpha. Toady put up a release of it because he figured someone would enjoy it like people have with past games of his. DF just somehow managed to become massively popular.
(OMG I can't wait for the next release! :D)
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Mirrsen:
<STRONG>And last I heard, GPG was going to start releasing games on their own, electronically. Of all the developers out there, I probably respect GPG the most.</STRONG>
I too love GPG, though that might be because I know people there. It's a beautiful office with a really great group of people inside.
They aren't publishing themselves, though. They're partnering with StarDock of Galactic Civilization fame - A.K.A. the best publisher anyone could ask for. They don't treat their customers like criminals, so they get all of my business. I bought Sins of a Solar Empire even though I don't like RTS games.
That being said, I'm not sure the engine would handle dynamic transformation and flows without significant tweaking. Besides, call me a purist but I love DF in 2D. I think a true 3D engine would actually add to the learning curve of the game.
I think the best thing that could happen to DF graphically is if the graphical end was totally independent of the core game. The graphics engine uses some interface to "see" what's going on in the game, and then displays it however it wants. The benefit to this modular design is that Toady wouldn't have to worry about some small graphical fix inadvertently destroying large swaths of code. Plus that would mean that different graphics engines could be used. In fact, if I could have one (feasible) DF wish, it would be a true fortress map export with a strictly designed layout. From there, the community can build real fortress viewers without having to muck about in memory to get the best approximation of the fortress they can.
... I think about this a lot.
Also, this is the strangest thread ever.
Oh well, on the subject of EA. EA seems to get it's jollies by buying up creative developers and dismantling them. That's what they did to Bullfrog. That's most likely what they'll do to Bay 12.
EA is pure unadulterated corporate evil in it's most pure unadulterated form. It has absolutely know regard for gamers beyond their wallets.
Also, the idea that EA would make DF XBox exclusive is absurd. They would never limit their potential buyers like that. What they would do is make it into a dumbed down console game for at least XBox 360 and PS3 and then port it to PC.
I think this illustrates my point fairly well.
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/02/24/with-ea-hungry-for-take-two-a-look-at-the-gaming-giants-past-purchases/
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]
quote:
Sindai
<STRONG>You're just assuming? I dunno, I would see exactly what the contracts say.</STRONG>
True, I'd be surprised if I'd be given the kind of free reign I need, but it's possible. However, I also have other problems with signing up for some kind of distribution deal which I didn't bring up. For instance, the release cycle you mentioned would be difficult to preserve (though I imagine some sort of subscription arrangement might work on that score), but even more basic is that I like the current setup where anyone play the game and pay what they want to for it. People value all sorts of different properties in games, and I think it's best if they don't have to drop quite a bit of money just to access DF, which might not end up being their thing.
quote:
Torak
<STRONG>I thought bolding it would make it a lot more obvious that was exactly what I was suggesting that towards.</STRONG>
I know, I saw the first time you mentioned that on page one. It's just a matter of tone, in particular to a first-time poster. It seems Ratty Boy is actually a net vet and wasn't disturbed by the post, but it still came off a bit rough, and I wouldn't have been surprised if he hadn't come back. It's not that big a deal, compared to some of the other crap elsewhere, so I don't mean to harp on it.
They're us!
Join me, my brethren! I shall begin stockpiling mushrooms and kittens! To the hills!
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Dasleah ]
quote:
Originally posted by Dasleah:
<STRONG>Of course! It all makes sense now! Dwarf Fortress isn't a game - it's a simulator to prepare and train us for the end of the world! Can't you see?! They're not Fortresses, they're bunkers! They're not Elves, they're The Man! They're not Dwarves!They're us!
Join me, my brethren! I shall begin stockpiling mushrooms and kittens! To the hills!
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Dasleah ]</STRONG>
The13thRonin picks up a +baseball bat+. Nothing can stop us no... Hey... Does that look like a giant web to you?
quote:
Originally posted by Dasleah:
<STRONG>Of course! It all makes sense now! Dwarf Fortress isn't a game - it's a simulator to prepare and train us for the end of the world! Can't you see?! They're not Fortresses, they're bunkers! They're not Elves, they're The Man! They're not Dwarves!They're us!
Join me, my brethren! I shall begin stockpiling mushrooms and kittens! To the hills!
[ June 11, 2008: Message edited by: Dasleah ]</STRONG>
I am NOT I repeat NOT pulling this wagon another mile dammit. I mean, its made of WOOD for Armok's sake! Ya'll go ahead and do the bunker thing, me. Im gonna drink rum and fish out the apocolypse! Fish Dissectors, UNITE! Fight the Man! Crap, now I have been drafted. Whose the man again? And why is He stationing me on this bridge?
quote:
Ratty Boy is actually a net vet and wasn't disturbed by the post
*grin* You've got sharp eyes.
I cut my teeth on the net with usenet addiction. Consequently, I no longer am a forum addict. Once usenet turned into a flame ridden landscape devoid of any intelligent conversation, I broke the addiction to forums. It was bad. I used to spend about 4 hours a day on usenet. I almost didn't come back here simply because I generally don't have the time to dedicate to forums. My point was merely to give compliments to the chef. I'm glad I stopped back in though. There are some smart, creative people (Bill Hicks has a word for that demographic) on the boards here. It was refreshing to get away from the text speak crowd.
I piddled for years on a religious apologetics newsgroup. It took 4 years, but I finally learned that in religion and politics you will never sway the minds of the masses. The flames religion or politics discussions are pretty intense. People are generally willing to die for political and religious views. Couple that with near anonymity on the usenet and you have instant kindling for flames.
Ah, and alt.support.stop-smoking was a help when I put down the cigarettes 3 years ago. =) I have since 'saved' about $10k that otherwise would have been spent on cigs.
I think the discussion was good though and from reading around teh forum, I think there's a good, dedicated group here. A very eccentric group, but dedicated.
:) Still wonderful to have experienced DF. What's even better is I'm still experiencing it. And judging from the posts and longevity of the product, I will be entranced for ages by it's devilishly convoluted structure of play. I love it.
Tonight I got my first mayor and I've been trying to satisfy him. There was also a huge wave of immigrants that I have to contend with, a food shortage was averted, I actually got a buzz from my 40 oz beer b/c I skipped dinner, and my wife called me Goobie. And now it's after midnight and I have spent another 6 hours enthralled with my dwarves.
:)
quote:
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
<STRONG>Subject, since you love mankind so much. Come over here to Southern Ohio and take a spin as a bagger at the local grocery mart. Before I did, I truly thought there might be a few smart people left in the non-internet.A folly.</STRONG>
That means it's free, right?
...Dwarf Fortress is to sims what Cave Story is to platformers
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Qmarx ]
quote:
Originally posted by A_Fey_Dwarf:
<STRONG>I don't believe EA has fucked up every game they take over. Command&Conquer 3 is a great game. I don't care if some people dislike it, rushing an enemy player with 1000+ nod militants screaming 'FOR THE BROTHERHOOD!!' is fun anytime of day.</STRONG>
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, yours doesn't seem very common among experts. ;)
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]
quote:
Originally posted by Rattyboy:
<STRONG>There are some smart, creative people (Bill Hicks has a word for that demographic) on the boards here. It was refreshing to get away from the text speak crowd.
.... A very eccentric group, but dedicated.
:) Still wonderful to have experienced DF. What's even better is I'm still experiencing it.
</STRONG>
Yup, my main three reasons to hang around here still. For about 2 years now I think. Hell, even the occasional flame war mostly consists of real words and arguments instead of mud and gore. I luv this community.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: martinuzz ]
I don't beleive that the average gamer cares nothing about gameplay. However, here's what I do beleive.
Graphics and hype and reviews sell a game. Gameplay, however, keeps them playing. Why do you see so many used titles of one game and not another? Because the other game has better gameplay and better replay value.
Dwarf Fortress has _oodles_ of replay value and gameplay. The challenge is in getting the word out to overcome (what many would see as) simplistic or confusing graphics.
With the recent wave of sandbox-like titles with tons of replay value coming out, like Spore, especially, Dwarf Fortress stands in a great position to overcome possible PR issues and fly off the shelves. Gamers don't want story-driven quests solely anymore - they want open-ended, and Dwarf Fortress is pretty much as open-ended as they come.
What I would suggest is making a "deluxe version" with a good graphical tileset and extra features (not too many, of course - the game will still be quite fun and playable with the normal version) and make it available for, say, 5-10$ online. Once the presentation arc is done, DF just might have a shot. And it would help go towards development costs. Lord knows I'd be willing to buy it.
By the time a year or so has passed, I'd say it'll have made so much money for the brothers that a corporation just might get it's interests perked! ^_^
Which flummoxes me, since EA's customer-base and their products really wouldn't affect people if they didn't give so much attention to it in the way they do. I guess it's the same reason why trolls always get so much attention; people have a hard time learning the politics of speech. Of course, I'm not a behavioral expert, so this could mean jack squat. It could also be because I've got business and economics running through my veins, making me oblivious to whatever evil they commit.
In any case, I enjoyed quite a few EA games. I love the Generals series for some reason (see my little username-message thing there), much more than the regular old C&C series but not as much as Red Alert. The Sims is fun and I won't fault them for milking their cash cows (would you fault PepsiCo for selling Pepsi?). Then there's Dungeon Keeper 2, Rock Band, and Burnout just off the top of my head. Oh yeah, Boom Blox too.
That list is actually longer than the number of games I enjoy from Activision, Sega, Sony, Take Two, or Ubisoft.
quote:
Originally posted by subject name here:
<STRONG>Experts in this case being bitter "Old School" gamers who never quite grew up.</STRONG>
Sure, whatever you need to call them to make yourself feel better. People who have experience.
quote:
Originally posted by umiman:
<STRONG>EA seems to be in the same vein as Microsoft (or perhaps Apple nowadays). A scapegoat for everything that can go wrong, it probably won't matter if they released A+ games consistently while donating millions to orphanages daily since people are so fixed on their vendetta with the company.Which flummoxes me, since EA's customer-base and their products really wouldn't affect people if they didn't give so much attention to it in the way they do. I guess it's the same reason why trolls always get so much attention; people have a hard time learning the politics of speech. Of course, I'm not a behavioral expert, so this could mean jack squat. It could also be because I've got business and economics running through my veins, making me oblivious to whatever evil they commit.
In any case, I enjoyed quite a few EA games. I love the Generals series for some reason (see my little username-message thing there), much more than the regular old C&C series but not as much as Red Alert. The Sims is fun and I won't fault them for milking their cash cows (would you fault PepsiCo for selling Pepsi?). Then there's Dungeon Keeper 2, Rock Band, and Burnout just off the top of my head. Oh yeah, Boom Blox too.
That list is actually longer than the number of games I enjoy from Activision, Sega, Sony, Take Two, or Ubisoft.</STRONG>
None of the games you mentioned were developed by EA they were merely the publishers, and in Rock Band's case they were just the distributor.
Bullfrog, the company that made Dungeon Keeper was shut down by EA.
Burnout 3 was the first game in the series published by EA, the series already had a successful following beforehand.
They're the quintessential evil corporation in gaming. They buy up their rivals just to remove them and treat their employees badly. They fired an entire development team right after they had completed a project. They're the enemy of creativity. Though in recent years their new strategy does seem to be, try something sort of creative then milk it till it's a shriveled husk. They usually make games that a just good enough to sell really well, but never spectacular.
Basically, they don't give a crap about games as an artform. Only games as a product, and they are ruthless in trying to gain a monopoly or as close to one as is legal.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]
quote:Religion and politics are always brought up as the two subjects that upset people the most.
Originally posted by Rattyboy:
<STRONG>I piddled for years on a religious apologetics newsgroup. It took 4 years, but I finally learned that in religion and politics you will never sway the minds of the masses. The flames religion or politics discussions are pretty intense. People are generally willing to die for political and religious views. Couple that with near anonymity on the usenet and you have instant kindling for flames.</STRONG>
From personal experience, let me tell you that the two have nothing on telling people how to raise their children. I don't mean "I said something one time that got me in trouble." personal experience either. I mean "Results may be reproduced and underlying mechanics seem to perform with consistency."
On that note, what makes a gaming expert? Are they the corporate Exec's who run the companies or the people who spend 24+ hours playing MMORPGs and pooping into socks?
Aren't experts the people you see on talk shows talking about all the things that are corrupting the youth today?
But feel free to continue with your "LOL HOW DARE I NEED SOMEONE WHOSE EXPERIENCED TO DO A JOB LOL I AM SOUNDING LIKE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT ELITISTS!" rant while completely failing to notice the difference between the two (expert and elitist), you probably copy all your opinions from the Daily Show. Who am I kidding, you clearly do.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: subject name here ]
But still, who is the expert on the subject of games?
The corporate guys who make millions selling the same game with a different number in the title or the Hardcore gaming manbaby who forgos basic hygiene to better get his game on?
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: subject name here ]
What if one of the forum members who talks about giving you millions to develop the game as you see fit did it? I mean, they won $100 million in the lotto and could actually afford to throw a few million your way, and said something like "Ok, you get $2 million to develop the game. Do as you please, only requirement is that you have to actually complete it."
What would you do? Would you even want to hire some additional programmers, get some artists, any of that? Or would you turn it down? Maybe just take what you'd need to live on for next few years and keep going as you have been, but secure in the fact that you don't have to worry about money?
I know this is a silly pie-in-the-sky type question. It's really not likely to ever happen, but every time someone mentions it I have to wonder how it'd really play out.
And, for the record, if I ever do get super rich, I'll give you that offer. ;)
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Melloth ]
This thread seems to have kicked up a few seperate issues: the role of big, bad, publishers like EA in the gaming industry, the interface clunkyness of DWAAARF FORTRESS, and the nature of the market that buys games as a whole.
It seems to me that many people fail to grasp the concept of economics, which is this: companies do not "create" money from nothing by being evil and scheming with their hands rubbing together behind some big desk in front of a thirtieth story window. They get money from people, not by punching them in the kidneys and taking it, but by trading for some good or service, and such trade is always initiated by the customer. EA can be neither good nor evil until it starts doing something illegal, because until then it requires the cooperation of the party that most would say they are "taking advantage of," be it third party developers, children, or elderly grandmothers. EA produces and distributes a product, videogames, that are either commissioned, sponsored, or even directed by the company. Then those games are purchased by people all over the country, or even the world, and that money finds its way back to EA. The amount of money EA makes is based COMPLETELY on the willingness of people to purchase its products, no matter how completely crappy they may be. Thus, we find ourselves at my third point: the total idiocy required of the customer base to support a hierarchy of bad games. When people become complacent and thoughtless with their money because they have been taught to regard money as evil, dirty, the cause of greed and corruption, they spend with reckless abandon on anything that catches their fancy. The truth is that money is nothing more or less than a direct compensation for your hard labour, be it of the physical or more mental nature, and thus should be spent with the utmost care and consideration. Instead, people who are, to be perfectly blunt, idiots, see fit to blow their money on anything and everything. Even if they don't have any money, they can still spend, thanks to the miracle of loans and credit cards. So, they walk into a store and look for the flashiest box with the most appealing cover for themselves or their children, buy it on the spot, and take it home without a second thought. They don't read reviews, look up features, or even ask a friend if it's any good: they just spend and forget, quickly running out to buy something else to replace that game as soon as they get tired of it. This leads to the second point (my order is a bit off, but I'm too lazy to fix my initial statement. Meh.) which is that DWAAARF FORTRESS's interface would present a considerable hurdle to any sort of major publishing operation. Supposing that some big developer/publisher were to pick up and sell DWAAARF FORTRESS without making any major changes, how would the public react? Well, first of all there would be the group who make up the most devout DWAAARF FORTRESS followers: people with quite a bit of patience, free time, and imaaaagination. I say imagination, but what I mean is this; people who reaaally enjoy DWAAARF FORTRESS are, I think, mostly people who find it easy and entertaining to put themselves into the game, with the ability to take the basic output of the game and imagine what those tidbits of text are meant to represent. When these people see "The spinning !!fish!! strikes the Goblin in the fourth finger, left hand!" they picture in their mind, almost automatically, a flaming carp corpse with bones protruding in odd place twirling through the air and stabbing an advancing green-skinned monkey in his uncovered hand, forcing him to howl in pain, spattering blood everywhere, and drop his weapon at his feet. Then, you have the "instant gratification" crowd who demand not only fast, but vivid and visual gameplay. These people probably don't read a great deal, don't spend much time standing still, and for the most part wouldn't play videogames if they couldn't do it while screaming at their friends in one manner or another. They'd look at the same sentence, supposing they had the patience to wade through the manual long enough to get to that point, and say out loud, "WHAT THE FUCK IS A !!FISH!!?!?" Then there's the inexperienced crowd; kids, grandparents, and though I feel like a bit of a sexist pig, the vast majority of women. They probably wouldn't be able to get past their first adventurer simply because the idea of pushing "k" in order to determine what that yellow lowercase 'c' was supposed to be is simply beyond their expertise.
SO, since this is probably a bit much for anyone to read in one sitting, I'll start tying things together. While EA is a corporation and is thus concerned with making money, it is the duty of the consumer to ensure that they make that money by producing quality games. I cannot be entirely sure about the following, but based on the popularity of certain games, the vast majority of the videogame market is made up of inexperienced, careless buyers who don't really know what they're doing. And thus, DWAAARF FORTRESS would indubitably sell at least a few thousand copies, but without blatant lies on the boxart would be almost impossible to sell well. So, EA would be forced to dumb down the content, reducing the in-game activities to a few well-defined archetypes, dungeons, wood-gathering, and unit-training. They'd probably have to add a nice, pleasing graphical system with fancy graphics, and dumb down the pathfinding, unit limits, physics and weather simulation in order to allow more dated machines to play the game. All of what DWAAARF FORTRESS is to us would be removed to make the game more accessible to the mainstream of uninformed and complacent consumers. The game would be destroyed and utterly torn apart, not by EA, but by the consumer base that supports them. No consumer wants to take responsibility for how their buying habits influence the market as a whole, so they construct the idea of some evil mastermind at the head of the big, bad corporations. But the corporations can't fight the image because people continue to misguidedly buy the products that other people protest as marks of the evil that stains the videogame industry.
One final point: there are a great many people who are frightened by DWAAARF FORTRESS, not because they are stupid or nubs, but because they feel that they don't have the time to learn the ludicrously complicated system of symbols and such that it is made of. It's entirely plausible that they may not have time, and so they should probably be left alone.
Also, I'm pretty sure this is mostly incoherent rambling, but I need to post it before I make some final edits 'cause I'm afraid my computer is about to crash.
EDIT: Heyzeus flapjack-flipping Cripes, that is one hell of a wall of text! Good lord, how long have I been sitting here typing this?!
MORE EDIT: Well, so long as I'm gonna contribute to this flamefest, I mind as well attempt to "mellow" it a bit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Reasonableman ]
I have pictures if you want.
(http://forums.filefront.com/attachments/death-star/59680d1197132551-darth-revan-versus-darth-vader-darthvader-medicom-_03.jpg)
Prewf.
EDIT: The original picture was extremely large.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]
EDIT: BLAST YE CTHULHU your edit has prompted me to say that this comment was directed at the original image.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Reasonableman ]
quote:
Originally posted by subject name here:
<STRONG>But feel free to continue with your "LOL HOW DARE I NEED SOMEONE WHOSE EXPERIENCED TO DO A JOB LOL I AM SOUNDING LIKE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT ELITISTS!" </STRONG>
I don't think I've ever seen this kind of language on this forum (apart form Moin, but he doesn't count), so attributing it to a well-spoken member of this board is a mite out of order, snh. His post was partly tongue in cheek, from what I gather too. The defensiveness is unnecessary.
Also, Reasonableman, for a gigantic wall of text (it engulfed my entire monitor - curse my low resolution!), that read pretty easily and accurately too, although I didn't get the reference to the multiple usage "a" in various words.
quote:
Originally posted by Rictus:
<STRONG>Also, Reasonableman, for a gigantic wall of text (it engulfed my entire monitor - curse my low resolution!), that read pretty easily and accurately too, although I didn't get the reference to the multiple usage "a" in various words.</STRONG>
It's no reference, I just have a tendency to type much like the manner in which I speak, wherein I elongate things for emphasis. The carefully typed DWAAARF FORTRESS comes from my over-enthusiastic (to the point of near insanity) support of the game, and my insistence on constantly being in the same state of excitement over it, if that makes any sense.
EDIT: Paragraph removed for clarity.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Reasonableman ]
quote:
Originally posted by Armok:
<STRONG>Armok has mandated the baning of 'Subject name here'.</STRONG>
It does seem that 'subject name here' has a tendency of derailing a perfectly normal DF flame war with personal attacks and unnescessary assumptions.
I wouldn't say 'ban' right away, but, 'subject name here', do remember Toady saying in this thread:
quote:
<STRONG>Is everything okay in here? People shouldn't yell at each other and stuff.</STRONG>
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: martinuzz ]
quote:
Originally posted by Reasonableman:
<STRONG>It's no reference, I just have a tendency to type much like the manner in which I speak, wherein I elongate things for emphasis. The carefully typed DWAAARF FORTRESS comes from my over-enthusiastic (to the point of near insanity) support of the game, and my insistence on constantly being in the same state of excitement over it, if that makes any sense.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Reasonableman ]</STRONG>
I thought as much. Though I had lingering doubts about a Sparta 300 reference.
Currently, for the overall game market, EA and Nintendo are competing for the #1 spot in absolute market share, but from what I've seen personally, EA is the dominant publisher for PC games. It's hard to avoid seeing them in several places whenever you walk into a game store. Their market share gives them substantial power. I don't doubt that if they wanted to, they could probably tell a small company to sell out, threatening to run them out of business if they don't. EA's substantial profit margin allows them to 'invest' heavily in the stocks of other companies. EA bought up nearly a fifth of all of Ubisoft's stock, causing the Ubisoft CEO to publicly note this as a hostile act. Any company that releases their stock onto the market is vulnerable to a hostile takeover, and EA is quite capable of using this to gain further market share.
There was even an anti-trust lawsuit filed on June 5, 2008, due to them making exclusive license agreements with the NFL, their players union, the AFL, and the NCAA, which prevented other companies from making similar agreements. The end result of this action was EA driving it's competition out of the sports game arena by getting rid of NFL 2k5, allowing the price of Madden NFL to skyrocket under their control from around 30 dollars to around 50 dollars. It seems the case hasn't been resolved yet.
I don't think all of EA's games suck, but it does seem their games don't live up to the ambition that started them. Really, the difference between unimpeded ambition and ambition limited by a bottom line is in many cases the difference between a true work of art, and just-a-game. DF is an excellent example of what happens when inspiration and ambition are allowed to run freely, and I find DF to be superior to many multi million dollar projects.
Really, it's their outright obsession with the bottom line, limiting of creative processes, and anticompetitive nature that leads me to see not a pioneering game corporation when I look at EA, rather, I see an embodiment of the shortcomings of capitalism.
Until people stop buying EA's stuff, EA will probably just keep expanding it's hold on the market, and the crowd they cater to is a rather large one, so that's not likely to happen soon.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: AlanL ]
quote:
Originally posted by AlanL:
<STRONG>
Until people stop buying EA's stuff, EA will probably just keep expanding it's hold on the market, and the crowd they cater to is a rather large one, so that's not likely to happen soon.[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: AlanL ]</STRONG>
This is, in a way, what I was trying to say. Capitalism's success depends entirely on competency on all levels of the market, both consumer and producer. When people become complacent with poor quality games, they give major companies license to continue making such games. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the company itself is not to blame: it, like any other business, seeks to make money by giving people what they want. If people continue to buy bad games, they'll keep making 'em. What you pointed out, that EA would buy out other companies to prevent competition, is in my mind not in line with capitalist ideals. The entire concept of stock is built around the idea of lending money, which I think is the fundamental problem with the twentieth and twenty-first century economy. You'll notice that throughout history major economic crises are preceded by the collapse of institutions responsible for lending and borrowing money, be they banks, credit card companies, or any sort of stock market system.
Before I go on much more, I'd like to make sure that my understanding of Wall Street is at least relatively accurate. As I understand it, the entire concept of the stock market is that you purchase part of the company or its profits, a "share" in its total worth. So, basically, you're gambling on the success or eventual failure of a company, lending them money to allow them to expand and compete with major companies that are already established. The problem with that is simply that you are giving money to someone without a guaranteed return, which I find immoral and generally despicable, not only because it allows redistribution of wealth according nearly to chance, not ability, but also that it permits such anticompetitive actions as the ones you describe above. Perhaps this is why gambling has (or at least used to have) such a negative stigma?
In any case, I don't think EA is to blame; as I said, they seek to make as much money as possible, both for themselves and their stockholders, however much I may dislike that entire process. In truth, the failure lies in an economic system that allows such takeovers despite the wishes of the people who found and run such companies. I find it annoying when people oversimplify things by saying that EA is a big, evil company and i haet them cuz thay suckzorz. All that does is make your idea seem weak and ill-founded, even if acting according to such an assumption may improve the situation that their practices have created.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Reasonableman ]
quote:
Originally posted by subject name here:
<STRONG>You sound pretty bitter, do you live near poor people?On that note, what makes a gaming expert? Are they the corporate Exec's who run the companies or the people who spend 24+ hours playing MMORPGs and pooping into socks?
Aren't experts the people you see on talk shows talking about all the things that are corrupting the youth today?
But feel free to continue with your "LOL HOW DARE I NEED SOMEONE WHOSE EXPERIENCED TO DO A JOB LOL I AM SOUNDING LIKE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT ELITISTS!" rant while completely failing to notice the difference between the two (expert and elitist), you probably copy all your opinions from the Daily Show. Who am I kidding, you clearly do.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: subject name here ]</STRONG>
I don't really know how well to do my neighbors are but considering that we all live in 'affordable' (read cheaply built) housing they couldn't have been much better off than me.
Experts are people with experience and knowledge. The Daily Show is not the first thing to point out that people often try to discredit experts with questionable reasoning. The biggest one is, the "Experts are just people like us." Which is clearly not entirely wrong. Just entirely incomplete. It should say "Experts are just people like us, but with specific knowledge and expertise on a subject."
You accuse me of being unable to tell the difference between Elitist and Expert yet you're the one who said "Aren't experts the people you see on talk shows talking about all the things that are corrupting the youth today?" Which shows that you either don't know what an expert is or are just terrible at making an argument. You don't seem to understand that I'm mocking the very fact that the subject of my mockery considers expert and elitist one in the same... unless they agree with what they already believe.
So who is the video game expert? The people who constantly play them or the executives who view them as nothing more than another product and only know/care what sells the most? It's really not a hard question to answer.
Wow, missed a whole page of posts and they were apparently actually well thought out and intelligent... damn.
Reasonableman. I agree that EA isn't the entirely to blame but I don't agree that it's guiltless. They could simply be more ethical if they chose. They actively do immoral and unethical things just to get a bit more profit. Now if people were less akin to sheep then they would have a much harder time doing that, but you try telling someone that something they enjoy is detrimental to them and things they care about. They'll just shut you out. Not even proof works on the most people most of the time. The only thing that can sway them is a good speech or clever one liner. It's not really even entirely their fault. They're trained not to think for themselves that way by the education system. Then told what they should think instead by the media.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]
quote:
Originally posted by Reasonableman:
<STRONG>One final point: there are a great many people who are frightened by DWAAARF FORTRESS, not because they are stupid or nubs, but because they feel that they don't have the time to learn the ludicrously complicated system of symbols and such that it is made of. It's entirely plausible that they may not have time, and so they should probably be left alone.</STRONG>
As I may have mentioned earlier in this thread (I don't recall, and I'm sure as hell not rereading this monstrosity), I spent a week or two pouring over the forums and the wiki before ever even downloading the game. There isn't a learning curve with DF so much as there is a learning cliff.
... but it's soooo worth the effort.
1. Being paid by or are a part of EA (also known as 'selling out' on your fellow gamers).
2. Criminally Insane and in desperate need of urgent psychological attention.
3. Someone who thinks they understand the gaming market without actually being a gamer themselves (also known as the wider media).
4. In denial (see reason two).
You are liable to receive the following punishments:
1. Being subjected to "Hammer Time" by the Captain of the Guard.
2. Being fed to the giant cave spiders.
3. Having your artifacts destroyed by a falling drawbridge.
4. Looking hard at yourself in the mirror one day and realizing that everything you know, everything you love is a lie.
quote:
Originally posted by Ioric Kittencuddler:
<STRONG>
Reasonableman. I agree that EA isn't the entirely to blame but I don't agree that it's guiltless. They could simply be more ethical if they chose. They actively do immoral and unethical things just to get a bit more profit. Now if people were less akin to sheep then they would have a much harder time doing that, but you try telling someone that something they enjoy is detrimental to them and things they care about. They'll just shut you out. Not even proof works on the most people most of the time. The only thing that can sway them is a good speech or clever one liner. It's not really even entirely their fault. They're trained not to think for themselves that way by the education system. Then told what they should think instead by the media.
</STRONG>
EDIT: Oops, forgot to add content.
Anyway, what I meant to say is that I think we have come to the heart of the matter. No party is truely blameless, but neither are they fully to blame. In all things there is or should be balance. Such is the nature of the universe.
THE END.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Reasonableman ]
"None of the games". All you mentioned were two. They still published the games. It still doesn't change the fact that EA had a hand in them, and according to this thread, anything that EA touches turns to shit. Contradiction.
There's also plenty of people who would vouch for other EA games like Need for Speed and the assorted sports games since they keep buying them over and over. I can already hear the argument but hold, not all consumers are stupid. You are a consumer. Do you consider yourself stupid? Then why would other consumers make stupid decisions repeatedly to the tune of millions? Perhaps there's something that draws them to buy the games again?
Here's a tip to the lesser folk on these forums intent on starting trouble. Those are rhetorical questions.
Allow me to provide my theory into why everyone hates EA games. I propose that it's because of their slogans and logo which you are forced to listen to every single time you play the games. Hearing "EA GAMES. Challenge EVERYTHING." or "EA SPORTS! It's IN the game!" every single bloody time you turn on the game leads to the subconscious connection between games and that name. So if a game sucked at some point, people would subconsciously make the connection between it and EA GAMES CHALLENGE EVERYTHING... followed by the Nvidia logo. Do they still do that now? I don't remember... It was damn annoying.
quote:
Originally posted by umiman:
<STRONG>Ioric Kittencuddler: Clarification and explanation:"None of the games". All you mentioned were two. They still published the games. It still doesn't change the fact that EA had a hand in them, and according to this thread, anything that EA touches turns to shit. Contradiction.
There's also plenty of people who would vouch for other EA games like Need for Speed and the assorted sports games since they keep buying them over and over. I can already hear the argument but hold, not all consumers are stupid. You are a consumer. Do you consider yourself stupid? Then why would other consumers make stupid decisions repeatedly to the tune of millions? Perhaps there's something that draws them to buy the games again?
Here's a tip to the lesser folk on these forums intent on starting trouble. Those are rhetorical questions.
Allow me to provide my theory into why everyone hates EA games. I propose that it's because of their slogans and logo which you are forced to listen to every single time you play the games. Hearing "EA GAMES. Challenge EVERYTHING." or "EA SPORTS! It's IN the game!" every single bloody time you turn on the game leads to the subconscious connection between games and that name. So if a game sucked at some point, people would subconsciously make the connection between it and EA GAMES CHALLENGE EVERYTHING... followed by the Nvidia logo. Do they still do that now? I don't remember... It was damn annoying.</STRONG>
I mentioned all three game you did. Let me repeat. Rock Band was Developed by Harmonix and Published by MTV. EA was only the distributer, and thus did not control development.
Burnout 1 and 2 were published by Acclaim. EA only got a hold of the series for the third game, by that point it had already proven successful and EA has just cashed in.
Dungeon Keeper. That one is kind of strange. Peter Molyneux as we all now know is completely insane. Somehow EA gave him freedom to develop all sorts of original games that weren't necessarily guaranteed hits. Then they suddenly shut down Bullfrog Productions for reasons I'm still not sure of. What's even stranger is that PM then started a new company, Lionhead and guess who published their first game? I really can't say about DK, or any Bullfrog game for that matter. But considering that EA shut them down I don't see how that really makes them less evil.
I never said everything touched by EA turns to shit. Those are your words.
The sports games are just a rehash every single year. They sell because people are obsessed with sports and have to have the latest rosters. I've never really been into Need for Speed, but last I heard it was in carbon copy land. In fact, wasn't that the name of the last game?
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]
Also, on Peter Molyneux's insanity. What do you mean? Did he do something crazy I missed lately? I stopped paying attention to him after BC got canceled and I realized Fable sucked. Will Wright is my hero now.
EA officially rules. Space Hulk, a WH40K game produced and published by EA is no longer under ESA protection, meaning it is fully legal to download it. I've never played it, but it looks awesome.
EDIT: I can confirm. It's awesome. You control a squad of Terminators on these derelict ships. They're full of these aliens called Genestealers, and you have to: Kill them, purge rooms by fire, get to the exit, find artifacts, or some combination of the four. You have a big screen for you, and smaller screens for your teammates and you can switch between guys. The aliens themselves are fast, lethal and very intelligent. You can see them on your radar, and they stalk you, trying to unnerve you into doing something stupid. They like to sit right around a bend where you can't hit them, trying to provoke you into coming closer. Once you're too close to fight them effectively, they rush around the corner and leap on you. I've also had them use side-passages to try to get behind me. Sound Effects are awesome, everything is awesome. You need DOSBox to play it though, but that's not really a problem. You can get it at Abandonia.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]
quote:
Mephansteras
<STRONG>So, I have a question for Toady.What if one of the forum members who talks about giving you millions to develop the game as you see fit did it? I mean, they won $100 million in the lotto and could actually afford to throw a few million your way, and said something like "Ok, you get $2 million to develop the game. Do as you please, only requirement is that you have to actually complete it."
What would you do? Would you even want to hire some additional programmers, get some artists, any of that? Or would you turn it down? Maybe just take what you'd need to live on for next few years and keep going as you have been, but secure in the fact that you don't have to worry about money?</STRONG>
Regardless of the financing, I'm not really interested in working with anybody. I'd hate being a manager of peoples, even one peoples, and if there were more than a few I think it would be harder to keep tabs on things to the point that the overall game would suffer for it, although basic improvements would get done faster, so it's a mixed bag. I like how things are going now though. If the money has to be spent on developing a company with employees and so on, I can confidently say that I'd reject the offer. It's just not my thing.
On the other hand, in the even more unlikely scenario that it's just money to support the two of us, it would be silly to say how I'd react to having millions of dollars thrown in my face even with a string attached here and there unless it actually happens -- people only sound self-righteous when they try to make predictions like that, and the uncertainty in my bank account does color my life. Of course I'd accept the money if the only condition were my continued work on DF, since I'm going to do that anyway, he he he. The "actually complete it" condition is sort of nebulous the way I have my vague dev list splattered out there, so I'd have to hash that out with whoever, in this wonderful fantasy scenario where I get money and stuff.
edit: TT and I got the PC Space Hulk back when it first came out, but I don't remember anything aside from the opening animation, if it indeed had one. I think I remember one...
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Toady One ]
quote:
Originally posted by Toady One:
<STRONG>I'm glad people are mostly not fighting now. There's no need to put sharp points on statements or ad hominem if you're interested in having a discussion.</STRONG>
I'll gladly take all credit for that, thank you very much whether or not I deserve it.
EDIT: Directed at Qmarx: is that some !!sarcasm!! I detect?
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Reasonableman ]
quote:
Originally posted by umiman:
<STRONG>But... but... EA made Boom Blox. And Boom Blox is cool :/</STRONG>
EA was not the maker of that game, but the agent of the maker. The same goes for Maxis games.
EA doesn't make anything at all, EA has no creative talent. That talent is provided by subsidiaries and such. EA itself is just an entrenched venture capitalist firm that happens to specialize in gaming. They are not a game developer, they're just a publisher. EA does not make games any more than Bloomsbury Publishing wrote Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
The best way to look at EA is to think of them as a large pile of money. A pile of money, left alone, cannot make a game. However if you give a large pile of money to a talented creative company, they can make a great game. Alternately if you give a large pile of money to a gaggle of inept and uninspired nitwits, they will usually produce a very crappy game with an expensive graphics engine and an overrun budget and poor sales which will require a second pile of money just to repair.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: MuonDecay ]
Gifts over the gift tax limit are burdensome. I think it's eleven grand, now, but it could be more. I don't work in that department anymore. See, the giftor pays the tax, not the giftee. Still, people with 'too much money' are encouraged by their accountants, if they hire good ones, to limit their own tax burden.
Sure you can play shell games with the gift tax by max gifting to your target and then max gifting to some other individual who then max gifts to your target. But that either involves trust or complication legalisms. And who's to say you don't want to use the same trick (which you can only use once per year per pass-through) to max gift to your niece's 529 through your aunt and uncle, assuming you can trust family to begin with.
I don't know how Toady is set up, but if he's accepting donations through a non-profit model that eases up the restrictions on donations. But it creates new restrictions on him and complicates things he's probably currently doing out of his checkbook. It's a fine thing to do if you can pay an accountant to reconcile your books on a quarterly basis, but I don't think Toady and his brother are up for that. I also doubt either one of them have taken 300-level accounting classes or are too terribly keen on self-learning that discipline to an adequate degree.
So that leaves the Old Choices, namely Debt or Equity.
Debt financing is out of the question since you have to pay it back and this business model, no offense, doesn't feel like it's at the point where such a commitment is a prudent choice. It's like getting married at sixteen. Sure it works for some people, but for most you're on a five year timer to heartbreak and financial sorrow.
Divorce, death, and taxes are what makes my job truly interesting, beyond the odd fat-fingering in account setup or migration.
Direct equity financing may be a bit rash at this point because Toady and his brother cannot be reasonably expected to understand how much their stock should be worth if their efforts are successful. Honestly the same is true for potential investors, whose decisions should be made carefully and given respect as well.
But options, options can be sold to finance growth, sustenance and a desktop computer that won't seize up like some rape-traumatized nice-girl the first time some gentleman puts his hand on the care package to the male race that G-d put where her legs come together. As long as Toady and his brother are careful not to sell options for more than 49% (or as long as they institute some kind of wildassed Founders' Shares scheme (see F)), they can maintain total control of the company into perpetuity.
And total control is inclusive of creative control, which is what we care about. Well, it's what I care about, anyway.
Anyway, they can maintain effective control with less than 51%, but that's another story. Most founders don't have the ability to scale their business past a certain degree and require Adult Supervision at some point. But that subject is beyond the scope of this post.
If I were to win the Powerball or some other fantasy windfall, I would put together an offer for options, with the caveat that I be allowed to help. Ten years ago I really enjoyed coding and I have a tolerance for monotony that suites a code-grinder. I wrote bad C that balanced on the edge of obfuscation. But it cut out clock-cycles while it was earning me bad marks from instructors who favored legibility.
With an understanding that I was to provide no creative input I could still enjoy optimizing and bug-chasing in someone else's code according to someone else's rules.
quote:
Originally posted by MuonDecay:
<STRONG>EA was not the maker of that game, but the agent of the maker. The same goes for Maxis games.
EA doesn't make anything at all, EA has no creative talent. That talent is provided by subsidiaries and such. EA itself is just an entrenched venture capitalist firm that happens to specialize in gaming. They are not a game developer, they're just a publisher. EA does not make games any more than Bloomsbury Publishing wrote Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
The best way to look at EA is to think of them as a large pile of money. A pile of money, left alone, cannot make a game. However if you give a large pile of money to a talented creative company, they can make a great game. Alternately if you give a large pile of money to a gaggle of inept and uninspired nitwits, they will usually produce a very crappy game with an expensive graphics engine and an overrun budget and poor sales which will require a second pile of money just to repair.
[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: MuonDecay ]</STRONG>
I second this particular analogy.
Also, if you should have some objection as to the blatant uselessness of this (my) post, I propose that any idea deserves at least a bit of recognition, seeing as it may make you think about it just a bit more. Plus everyone likes to have their ideas validated by complete strangers.
The only thing the gamer base is left with is broken dreams and greater sympathy for socialistic values.
That's how the entire left wing political arena sprung up. Someone decided that they had enough of EA and were prepared to dismantle and disenfranchise them.
quote:
Originally posted by Reasonableman:
<STRONG>I second this particular analogy.
Also, if you should have some objection as to the blatant uselessness of this (my) post, I propose that any idea deserves at least a bit of recognition, seeing as it may make you think about it just a bit more. Plus everyone likes to have their ideas validated by complete strangers.</STRONG>
It's a good metaphor but flawed. A better description of EA would be that it is a sentient pile of money that's only goal and reason for existence is to increase it's own size by whatever means necessary.
Look at you, hacker: a pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you run through my corridors. How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?
quote:
Originally posted by subject name here:
<STRONG>A typical human being in other words, a worthless parasite who actively destroys his home while making things worse for his fellow beings.Look at you, hacker: a pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you run through my corridors. How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?</STRONG>
You really are just a troll... Good grief, I agree with Armok. Someone who just posts random insulting bullshit in response to posts and then ignores the replies just drags down the whole forum.
I bet he doesn't even like Kittens.
[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]
[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]
quote:
Originally posted by Ioric Kittencuddler:
<STRONG>You really are just a troll... Good grief, I agree with Armok. Someone who just posts random insulting bullshit in response to posts and then ignores the replies just drags down the whole forum.
I bet he doesn't even like Kittens.
[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]
[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]</STRONG>
Well he does get some bonus for the system shock refference.
quote:
Originally posted by Ioric Kittencuddler:
<STRONG>
I bet he doesn't even like Kittens.
</STRONG>
Puppies are better. Specifically Boston Terrier puppies.
(cute sound of a kitten, being 'cuddled' by a dwarf)
[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: martinuzz ]
quote:
Originally posted by Ioric Kittencuddler:
<STRONG>You really are just a troll... Good grief, I agree with Armok. Someone who just posts random insulting bullshit in response to posts and then ignores the replies just drags down the whole forum.
I bet he doesn't even like Kittens.
[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]
[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]</STRONG>
I wasn't saying you're worthless, just that your entire species is, the world really would be better without humans, you know it.
quote:
Originally posted by subject name here:
<STRONG>I wasn't saying you're worthless, just that your entire species is, the world really would be better without humans, you know it.</STRONG>
Fortunately, I have a solution for this. You see, if the species is worthless, the obvious answer is to improve the species.
To that end, I have started my own deep-sea research foundation.
Also, SNH is forgetting the fact that as much as the human race sucks, if they weren't around he wouldn't be able to whine about how much they suck.
quote:
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
<STRONG>Also, SNH doesn't care about the fact that as much as the human race sucks, if they weren't around he wouldn't be able to pretend to be whining about how much they suck.</STRONG>
fixed
With each off topic post, his power grows.
Anyway, if we look at it from your point of view, since you basically admitted, "anything EA touches does not really turn to shit" and since you admitted that such a huge number of their games weren't in fact, made by them personally. Since you're so willing to admit that "it's MAXIS that creates the Sims and not EA", I can basically do the same for every single one of their other games. e.g: "it's EA SPORTS that creates their sports games". Currently, they are both subsidiaries. So, pray tell, what is the problem?
To summarize:
1. According to your analogies, EA doesn't do anything.
2. This was demonstrated by you concerning how it outsources everything.
3. By this logic, how would EA screw up a game if it doesn't make it?
4. Then, what is the bloody problem?
This is of course, in the understanding that you are arguing for the anti-EA camp. If you aren't, I would recommend revisiting and making your argument coherent. Also, here's a non-hostile, friendly tip (I'm serious): if you're in a debate and someone goads you into responding to every single one of his examples, it's a sign that he's trying to get you to play by his cards. I hope we can conclude this soon before Toady shuts down this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
<STRONG>How deep are we talking? Like Spongebob deep, or Cloverfield Deep?Also, SNH is forgetting the fact that as much as the human race sucks, if they weren't around he wouldn't be able to whine about how much they suck.</STRONG>
It's simply SHOCKing that you didn't see that reference. But perhaps I have a bit of a bios.
quote:
Originally posted by Qmarx:
<STRONG>It's simply SHOCKing that you didn't see that reference. But perhaps I have a bit of a bios.</STRONG>
I see what you did there.
quote:In Bay 12 games, you're the guys with the money.
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
<STRONG>EA doesn't make the game, but since they're the ones with the money, they can decide what can and can't be in the game.</STRONG>
Has there been any instance where you managed to decide what can or can not be in the game that affects the game in some huge manner that turns it into shit? In fact, if you were say, the primary shareholder of Bay 12 Games Inc., would you go out of your way to turn Dwarf Fortress into a pile of shit?
I'm only campaigning against the idea that EA games only makes shitty games right now. The money-grubbing-ness and all that, don't get me involved as it's all conjecture. As it is, I can't fathom why a company would force a subsidiary to make shitty games since that would mean less profits. Even if it were milking a cash cow like the Sims, Metacritic scores (for want of a better grading system) show a B average. That's not shit. That's highly respectable since it's bloody higher than so many other publishers.
You know something though. I can't think of any company taking an existing game and going out of their way to make it crap. I know they take existing concepts and existing series to make highly controversial stuff but not an existing game. It would have to be a really rare event for sure...
quote:And how would you know that? Have you played them from the very first one? Perhaps they are just not appealing to you and you're unlucky to be in the wrong demographic.
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
<STRONG>They're not doing it for the sake of making the game bad, they're making the game mass-marketable, which in our society means flashy graphics and simple gameplay. Take the sports games for example. How have they improved since the first sports games? Graphics. That's it.</STRONG>
But I'm not going to go into this. I said I was against the idea that EA only makes shitty games. If we have no problem with that, hey, there's no problem.
Ooooo, maybe wushu! Fucking wushu simulator. Would be awesome...
Anyway, like I said, have you played every single one of the sports games? I don't think you're really qualified to have that opinion unless you've played a huge number of sports games from the oldest (1995 isn't exactly old) to the latest ones. If we're on the same page arguing concerning whether the game is crap, then here's the double-bladed question. If you have, then why on earth did you buy them? If you haven't, how can you justify that it isn't pure bias blinding your insight?
EDIT: By the way, real men call it the Megadrive. Do you know what real men play on the Megadrive? Not some pansy ass NHL game you little worm. It's Michael Jackson: Moonwalker! Get it right! :mad:
[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: umiman ]
Anyway, back on topic.
There's at least one other way EA could make a game crappeh: force an early release.
Not that they always do (Anyone looking foward to Spore? Still?) but sometimes they'll release a game early to meet a distribution date or to capitalize on some kind of hype. I forget what game it was, some flight sim or somesuch, but to get it on Wal-Mart shelves they had to release it before the menus and dialogue was even finished, so everywhere in the game you'd see text boxes with "PLACEHOLDER TEXT" in nice, big letters. Plus it was reeeeaaaally buggy.
Also, is that how you spell dialogue? My spellchecker can't seem to identify it as a word.
Also, since my dad is a sports fan, he buys the games on occasion, giving a good staggered view of the growth as a whole. Beyond very small graphical updates, all of the games are essentially identical.
quote:
Originally posted by umiman:
<STRONG>I think the only time I'll play sports games is when they use full body motion control so I can suck as much in game as I do in real life and kick the ball at the referee. Unless it's tennis or badminton or squash or something like that. Other than that, I've only played Need for Speed 2... if that counts for a sports game.Ooooo, maybe wushu! Fucking wushu simulator. Would be awesome...
Anyway, like I said, have you played every single one of the sports games? I don't think you're really qualified to have that opinion unless you've played a huge number of sports games from the oldest (1995 isn't exactly old) to the latest ones. If we're on the same page arguing concerning whether the game is crap, then here's the double-bladed question. If you have, then why on earth did you buy them? If you haven't, how can you justify that it isn't pure bias blinding your insight?
EDIT: By the way, real men call it the Megadrive. Do you know what real men play on the Megadrive? Not some pansy ass NHL game you little worm. It's Michael Jackson: Moonwalker! Get it right! :mad:
[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: umiman ]</STRONG>
Your argument is ridiculous. Have you played every single game in the series? If not how can you justify defending them? All we can say is that whatever they're making sells. A game they made in 95 is extremely similar to the games they're making now. Both that game, and these games are only really improved in graphics and they have new rosters. That's the only evidence we have either way and it supports the argument that they DO just do the same thing over and over.
I don't know how the heck you got the idea that we're trying to argue that EA makes games crappy just for the hell of it. No one said anything like that as far as I remember. All I've been saying is that EA doesn't give a flying fuck-weasel whether the game is good or not. All they care about is profit. They control the development of games in order to increase the guaranteed profits at the expense of creativity, because the best way to guarantee profits is to do something that has already been profitable.
quote:
They control the development of games in order to increase the guaranteed profits at the expense of creativity, because the best way to guarantee profits is to do something that has already been profitable.
Cue 700 Pokemon.
I'm sure if you reread the thread without that mask of burning, crusading fury you have on right now you'll see that:
1. That post wasn't addressed to you, but rather Cthulu concerning EA's sports games. He said they were just re-releases of the same thing, and I asked why he can say that. He didn't answer, so I assume the point is moot. That's it.
2. I was defending my opinion that I like certain EA games. I was defending them from you who went out of your way to state that EA didn't make the games I like (I have no idea what your motivation for that was). This post is a page back and is addressed to you.
3. As for the "where did I get defending against EA making crap games" hoo hah. Just read the thread. It's even on the first page. There's the blatant connection between how people correlate EA with pretty graphics and poor gameplay ergo crap. Even you said it just now. If they keep making similar games and you have a problem with it, why? It can't be because they are all awesome and good or whatever. Obviously you wouldn't have a problem if they made good games even if they were remakes. So... the obvious observation would be...? If you can't see that then this conversation is really over for all reasons and purposes.
I still have no idea why you're so hostile since I don't know what you're arguing for. Just that you're arguing against everything I say. And you keep bringing up the EA likes money agenda which I don't care for since, like I said, it's all conjecture and personal beliefs. Someone going around claiming a company is evil or a company is a saint has more similarities with an evangelist running around a mall praising whatever he believes in than a logical debate. Everyone knows how well a religious debate goes, and that's why I don't pursue it. Anything else you want me to clarify?
TL/DR;
If you just agree that EA doesn't necessarily make crap games, then we'll all be good and dandy. Everything else, I don't care. Does that sound simplistic after all this time? Yes...
[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: umiman ]
quote:
Originally posted by Cthulhu:
<STRONG>Except I did answer. My dad buys the games, I don't, he hasn't bought them in a while, the last game I played was an '07, but I've played enough to know that they never really changed. I put this earlier, but it was kind of hidden.</STRONG>
quote:
Originally posted by Ioric Kittencuddler:
<STRONG>It's a good metaphor but flawed. A better description of EA would be that it is a sentient pile of money that's only goal and reason for existence is to increase it's own size by whatever means necessary.</STRONG>
Aye, I neglected to address the whole profit-obsessed-sentience aspect for the sake of being lazy and not complicating my metaphor.
I like piles of money. I will use them in analogies whenever possible. Unless I could be gaining or rolling in them instead.
quote:
Originally posted by umiman:
<STRONG>Ioric: You need to calm down. No one is attacking you. You don't have to flail about on your tether.I'm sure if you reread the thread without that mask of burning, crusading fury you have on right now you'll see that:
1. That post wasn't addressed to you, but rather Cthulu concerning EA's sports games. He said they were just re-releases of the same thing, and I asked why he can say that. He didn't answer, so I assume the point is moot. That's it.
2. I was defending my opinion that I like certain EA games. I was defending them from you who went out of your way to state that EA didn't make the games I like (I have no idea what your motivation for that was). This post is a page back and is addressed to you.
3. As for the "where did I get defending against EA making crap games" hoo hah. Just read the thread. It's even on the first page. There's the blatant connection between how people correlate EA with pretty graphics and poor gameplay ergo crap. Even you said it just now. If they keep making similar games and you have a problem with it, why? It can't be because they are all awesome and good or whatever. Obviously you wouldn't have a problem if they made good games even if they were remakes. So... the obvious observation would be...? If you can't see that then this conversation is really over for all reasons and purposes.
I still have no idea why you're so hostile since I don't know what you're arguing for. Just that you're arguing against everything I say. And you keep bringing up the EA likes money agenda which I don't care for since, like I said, it's all conjecture and personal beliefs. Someone going around claiming a company is evil or a company is a saint has more similarities with an evangelist running around a mall praising whatever he believes in than a logical debate. Everyone knows how well a religious debate goes, and that's why I don't pursue it. Anything else you want me to clarify?
TL/DR;
If you just agree that EA doesn't necessarily make crap games, then we'll all be good and dandy. Everything else, I don't care. Does that sound simplistic after all this time? Yes...[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: umiman ]</STRONG>
I am calm. I think you need to chill since you're the one who's resorting to personal attacks.
Your original post was something along the lines of 'EA isn't a bad company because they made Dungeon Keeper, Rock Band, and Burnout.' I pointed out that they hadn't made any of those games. Rock Band was developed Harmonix, the guys who made Guitar Hero 1 and 2, and Published by MTV. EA was only the distributor. Burnout 1 and 2 were published by Acclaim. It was already an established series when EA got a hold of it, and Criterion the developer. Dungeon Keeper is the only real exception. It's strange. Bullfrog worked for EA for years making fairly unique games. Then one day EA just shut them down for reasons I'm not sure of. I guess they weren't making a big enough profit.
EA makes a habit of buying up developers just to get ahold of their intellectual properties or just because they are a threat to EA's dominance, then shutting them down. They constantly engage in unethical anti-competitive behavior like this. They once laid off an entire dev team just after project completion.
They edited their own Wikipedia page to make it reflect on them more favorably, and even downplayed the significance of the founder, Trip Hawkins, who no longer works there.
What more do you need me to say?
<BLOCKQUOTE>What more do you need me to say?
Dude, no. Revolution sounds wonderful.AK47's for the masses!
SNH, your criticism would hold a bit more weight if you weren't well known as a troll here.
It's got nothing to do with liking you or not.
Oh yes it does.
Most of your posts are garbage
If my posts are garbage then yours are an entire landfill of it, whenever someone makes a point you disagree with you just make a condescending remark and ignore them. When they call you out on it you say "NO U!"
so I don't see why I should pay any more attention to that one.
But that's all you do.
Then again, you only payed attention to the first part of my post which wasn't even a response to yours
Last part actaully, it was the larges most cancerous part of your tumor of a post
so why am I still bothering.
That is something you must look deep within yourself to answer.
If you were suddenly disemboweled by a rabid neo-con on live TV I would be horrified and disgusted.
You really don't understand humor do you? You should write for something awful's front page article!
But I guess that just proves what a self righteous prick I am right?
"NO U!"
Ioric: Evidently you don't have a problem with the games then, as I keep telling you I don't care if they're juiced up whores or corporate scum. I already said I don't care about your personal values or ideas on how a business should be run. Just that they do make nice games even if your interpretation of "do" is different from mine, you can't deny the fact that they had their hand in "do"-ing the game. So long as their logo sits there, I couldn't care less how their corporate structure is formed.
Do we have a problem now? There's nothing to discuss if you intentionally misread my statements. Again, so you understand clearly. I don't care if the company is sick and mean. The games are good. Yes? Maybe again, just in case. I don't care if the company sucks. The games are good. That should drill it in. In other words, very, very simple okay: you are preaching to the wrong crowd UNLESS you think the games suck. I said very clearly in that post, "in any case, I enjoyed quite a few EA games." That does not translate to "EA isn't a bad company because they made Dungeon Keeper, Rock Band, and Burnout". It translates to, "anyway, I liked some EA games" or "regardless of anything else, I had fun playing some EA games". Do you fully understand now? Shall I bring out the hammer of knocking-truth-into-brain?
I wonder if that's enough... If you're aiming to have the last word, go for it. Preach all you like about how EA is corporate scum and is the bottom of the barrel. Just don't drag me into it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by umiman:
<STRONG>Ioric: You need to calm down. No one is attacking you. You don't have to flail about on your tether.<P>I'm sure if you reread the thread without that mask of burning, crusading fury you have on right now you'll see that:<P>1. That post wasn't addressed to you, but rather Cthulu concerning EA's sports games. He said they were just re-releases of the same thing, and I asked why he can say that. He didn't answer, so I assume the point is moot. That's it.<P>2. I was defending my opinion that I like certain EA games. I was defending them from you who went out of your way to state that EA didn't make the games I like (I have no idea what your motivation for that was). This post is a page back and is addressed to you.<P>3. As for the "where did I get defending against EA making crap games" hoo hah. Just read the thread. It's even on the first page. There's the blatant connection between how people correlate EA with pretty graphics and poor gameplay ergo crap. Even you said it just now. If they keep making similar games and you have a problem with it, why? It can't be because they are all awesome and good or whatever. Obviously you wouldn't have a problem if they made good games even if they were remakes. So... the obvious observation would be...? If you can't see that then this conversation is really over for all reasons and purposes.<P>I still have no idea why you're so hostile since I don't know what you're arguing for. Just that you're arguing against everything I say. And you keep bringing up the EA likes money agenda which I don't care for since, like I said, it's all conjecture and personal beliefs. Someone going around claiming a company is evil or a company is a saint has more similarities with an evangelist running around a mall praising whatever he believes in than a logical debate. Everyone knows how well a religious debate goes, and that's why I don't pursue it. Anything else you want me to clarify?<P><B>TL/DR</B>;
If you just agree that EA doesn't necessarily make crap games, then we'll all be good and dandy. Everything else, I don't care. Does that sound simplistic after all this time? Yes...<P>[ June 13, 2008: Message edited by: umiman ]</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am calm. I think you need to chill since you're the one who's resorting to personal attacks.<P>Your original post was something along the lines of 'EA isn't a bad company because they made Dungeon Keeper, Rock Band, and Burnout.' I pointed out that they hadn't made any of those games. Rock Band was developed Harmonix, the guys who made Guitar Hero 1 and 2, and Published by MTV. EA was only the distributor. Burnout 1 and 2 were published by Acclaim. It was already an established series when EA got a hold of it, and Criterion the developer. Dungeon Keeper is the only real exception. It's strange. Bullfrog worked for EA for years making fairly unique games. Then one day EA just shut them down for reasons I'm not sure of. I guess they weren't making a big enough profit. <P>EA makes a habit of buying up developers just to get ahold of their intellectual properties or just because they are a threat to EA's dominance, then shutting them down. They constantly engage in unethical anti-competitive behavior like this. They once laid off an entire dev team just after project completion.<P>They edited their own Wikipedia page to make it reflect on them more favorably, and even downplayed the significance of the founder, Trip Hawkins, who no longer works there.<P>What more do you need me to say?
I can't tell whether you're seriously trying to argue with me or if you're just pretending to in order to keep me trying to argue back in hopes of getting me to flame you.
Wow, talk about ignoring. I totally didn't do anything but make a condescending remark and then ignore umiman there.
I can _not_ believe someone (2 of them) have written this game.
I have /never/ been so entranced. They have achieved Suspension of Disbelief with this product. Complete suspension of disbelief. I am on the verge of an unhealthy all night session but that irritating thing called work is getting in the way.
Guys, if any game magazine editor ever gets wind of this program you will be quite pleased. It's only a matter of time before EA or some other big publisher notices your work and promptly dumps cash into your lap along with a producer to polish this off and put it on shelves. This game could easily be as big as Sim City in terms of sales.
Why, oh why don't I have lottery winnings to buy artists, coders, and marketing ppl to help you two get this concept onto store shelves.
This is an extremely commercially viable product. I can't believe it hasn't been scooped up by a game publisher.
Have you two been approched by publishers yet?
Saying you have no faith in humanity is pretty played-out these days.<P>"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."