Bay 12 Games Forum
Other Projects => Other Games => Topic started by: umiman on December 22, 2008, 10:22:09 pm
-
I guess you guys are getting sick of my philosophical threads by now but hey, humour me with your thoughts. This one will probably light a few flames but please try to keep it civil. Please ignore the trolls and speak your mind without fear.
I want to know what you guys consider to be a good game. To do this, I need to know your age (or age bracket if you don't want to say your age...) and what kind of games you like. The reason for this is simple: why is it that one game that is so considerably hideous in some eyes is considered a blessing of god in another.
To put it simply, and I say this knowing the full power of these words, why do some people consider Fallout 3 to be game of the year while others like myself consider it to be absolute garbage. (Yes, yes... I know.)
Keep in mind that the statement, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a useless statement equivalent to "because God willed it so." It won't help any discussion by assuming it can't be understood so to reach some form of resolution, the assumption that we can understand it must be made.
The reason I'm doing this is so that we might be able to better understand one another as gamers, and maybe we can be able to appreciate games from another person's point of view.
I'm sure you all know what I consider makes a grade A game by now (hint: giant l****s). What about you guys? Did you like Fallout 3? Why so? If you could make your own game, what would you focus on? In other words, when you buy a game, what is it that you are really looking for? Replayability? Length? Gameplay?
Remember, keep it civil. It doesn't have to be about Fallout 3 if that title irks you. I just chose that title because it's the most controversial game I can think of right now.
-
Keep in mind that the statement, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a useless statement equivalent to "because God willed it so." It won't help any discussion by assuming it can't be understood so to reach some form of resolution, the assumption that we can understand it must be made.
Because Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Each person is different, and have different interests, likes and dislikes, so games have to appeal to different contradictoray niches. Some people will love a game no matter what, because these people have interests that match with that game, and some people will hate a game no matter what, because these players dislike the game because it does not appeal to their interests. Interests also change when you grow older, so a game that may be awesome in your childhood may be boring later on ("Pocky and Rocky" is an example of this for me). People are in fact different.
If you can't accept that fact, it'd be pretty hard for you to understand why other people disagree with you. Some people love FPSes, other people do not. Some people love the open world, others do not. Some people like real time, others do not. Blah, blah, blah.
As for developing a 'better' game, my view is that the goal of gaming companies to find a niche, and milk that niche for all its worth. There is no 'better' game, the point of gaming companies is to produce products and make money. If they do that, they trimpuh.
-
This one will probably light a few flames but please try to keep it civil. Please ignore the trolls and speak your mind without fear.
............................................________........................
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
.........................,/...............................................”:,........
.....................,?......................................................\,.....
.................../...........................................................,}....
................./......................................................,:`^`..}....
.............../...................................................,:”........./.....
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/...........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\........................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\.......................
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\...............
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............
I know this wasn't substantive, and I don't care. This conversation has never gone anywhere but flamewars since the beginning of creative expression, and it never will.
-
The better graphics card is in the eye of the beholder.
Cats being better than dogs all depends on what you think.
Whether or not you think Toady One is a better game developer than Will Wright is entirely up to you.
I think whether he really deserved the death sentence or not is up to the judge.
Abortion really depends on the person aborting, don't you think? It's up to them whether they want to abort or not.
Genocide use is in the eye of the beholder.
I dislike statements that bring results no different from not saying anything at all in the first place. In other words, I don't mind if you say it so long as you add a little "because..." at the end to elaborate. Also, that wasn't the point of the thread. Please refrain from bringing it up again.
Also, are you Malaysian? Because Rocky is the Malaysian name for Pocky... hehehe. Apparently they had to change the name because it was some sort of slur in Malay but heck if I know what Pocky means in Bahasa.
Lastly, I don't care what you think corporation do to milk the people. I just want to know what you want in a game. In your words, if a company wants to milk you, what niche would you represent?
Aquizzar: I'm pretty sure it will eventually descend into a flamewar sooner or later as some newer people to the internet start to voice out, but I'm also sure we can learn something before that. In any case, I do want to know why people think current gen games deserves such praise.
It's illogical to assume that EVERYBODY who loves current gen games are idiots. There must be something that attracts them. Perhaps I can find out what that is as well.
-
Was this thread seriously just derailed after the second post? :P
For me, a game really needs to have some sort of cool experimental mess-around-with-some-stuff angle. I played Empire Earth and Age of Mythology for weeks without getting bored, just because they have awsome and easy to use editors. I don't think I played a single game where I harvested rescources, strategically built an army, fought the computer player, eventually destroyed his town center, and got the 'You're Winner!" screen. I mostly either made up weird little battles or epic castle seiges and played them, or joined multiplayer games with custom maps by other people. Games like Half-Life 2 are fun the first time you play through them, but after you've played it once you're pretty much done with it. I think I actually might have spent more time trying to survive the 'Waterfall of Doom!' mod in toribash with my head and torso intact then I spent playing HL2. Also, games where everything is destructable. Every game needs to be like Voxelstein 3D.
If a game doesn't have some sort of cool experimental mess with the physics or make random battles thing going on, it dang well better have a ridiculously long storyline, half a billion side quests, and multiple endings. I played all the recent Zelda games several times, just because the storyline and the quests were so filthy long that by the time you got to the end, the beginning was almost new again. I played Deus Ex two or three times...before I even got halfway through my first game, I already wanted to go back to the beginning and start over because I realised how many things I had missed, or wanted to do over and see how it would happen if I went the other way. I played Fallout 1&2 a few times because there were just so dang many side quests and so many different endings for the side quests and outcomes for the different areas, it didn't really matter that the 'main plot' only had one ending.
The absolute worst, worst, least fun games for me would be MMORPGS. You hit 5 damage, the monster hits 2, it dies. You level up. You hit 7 damage, the monster hits 4, it dies. Repeat for infinity. The same grind over and over and over game, and the end result of what can only be called work is a really big number next to your fake virtual name. -personal details removed-
-
Mmm... Wooty. I think we share the same tastes. Though allow me to add that it's hard bring myself to buy a game that has no replayable value. Games like RPGs are things I usually avoid because the cost for hour played is insignificant compared to something like a fighter or with a multiplayer aspect. I understand the games can be excellent, much like the Final Fantasy series, but to me, buying a game for one pass is not a good investment.
Also, haven't you ever wondered why exactly your sister enjoys KMMORPGs? Why are people attracted to grind and monotony? I have no answer to that question, so I pose the question to you.
-
Because I jump around constantly with games, never playing one for long, I need something that will bring me back.
I don't enjoy FPS's in general, but some can be ok.
RPG's are a staple in my gaming lineup, with games like Final Fantasy 1-2, and Tactics, and Disgaea, along with Oblivion, Morrowind, many many rougelikes, and The Legacy Of Kain series.
Vertical and horizontal shooters are great, I enjoy them, and I just love mech games.
I mostly like games that are random, a different thing each time, so I don't enjoy MMO's very much.
Once in a while I play a stategy game like Warcraft or AoE II, just because I like trying out different combinations of units, or building weird cities, before I crush the enemy.
Platformers, also great, ever sence Sonic 2 I have loved platformers as well, I find them pretty fun, as long as they are long enough.
For me a good game is something that keeps me going back to it, so it needs some randomness along with flexibility.
-
Also, haven't you ever wondered why exactly your sister enjoys KMMORPGs? Why are people attracted to grind and monotony? I have no answer to that question, so I pose the question to you.
Sense of accomplishment, drop the "K" and you might also get a good community.
I could say for the PvP, too, but then I would be almost completly talking about MMORPGs instead of KMMORPGs (With the exception of Space Cowboy, which was the exception to every rule about Korean MMOs ((Read: It rocked))).
-
Greetings!
I have to admit that I have a lousy track record as far as finishing games is concerned. Persona, Persona 2 Innocent Sin, and Persona 2 Eternal Punishment are probably the first games I really saw to the end.
I am 32 years old and end up being more of a collector (I probably have not played 1% of all the freeware games I have downloaded, sigh) than a player, and there are several veins into which my interests go.
DF falls for me into the class of simulation games like SimCity, Transport Tycoon, ... . Besides the ability to design/create something, I really enjoy their unexpected responses. I always loved that in SimCity, you wouldn't build a factory but designated an area where a factory may be built - but which factory was constructed was actually decided by the game. If the game has some freedom in responding to your input, this allows me to first of all be surprised, and secondly interpret things into the game. In this vein, SimCity Societies was the disappointment of the decade for me.
As my initial examples have shown, I am also with the genre of "classic" computer RPGs. With them, the appeal lies for me in the story and the characters, so I am more with the Japanese than the American school there. However, I have to admit that I also love the Wizardry series (I am referring to the original ones, not the new ones). So, basically, RPGs are kind of fantasy novels to me, and I prefer them to have an atmosphere similar to things I know from Japanese popular culture.
The interest in the good tale is probably also what draws me to digital novels. Reading these stories and feeling sympathy for the characters is a good thing. If you are able to change the end of the story to have at least your favorite character happy, all the better. More than any other genre, I suppose digital novels are for me foremost also an aesthetic thing, although what can look good in a digital novel may actually look awful outside of it. So, digital novels need to be a completely designed thing for me.
Closing the circle, the last genre I am interested in combines the interest in the great tale/aesthetic representation with the flexibility and freedom that came up with the simulation games. The genre I am referring to is text adventures, or as they are called nowadays, interactive fiction. A good text adventure needs to be able to tell an interesting story and also allow you enough freedom of action that you really want to experiment.
In general, I expect a good game to have a working internal logic. If the design of the game makes it inevitable that some design should work in a specific way, it should work that way and not be bugged or even cause the game to crash. In other words, the game should respond to any reasonable input with a meaningfully designed response.
Personality of the characters in a game is also a very important aspect for me. The characters should have their individual quirks, habits, and so on, and the game should give them chances to show off these quirks. The most important aspect here is durability of such quirks. If you have a cowardly character, that cowardice should show in any appropriate situation until the character is cured of it. If the cowardice only shows up once and the character otherwise behaves normal without any explanation, that is a bad game in my book.
Creator's love is also something I enjoy a lot. It does not feel so common in commercial games, but with freeware games, you can often feel how much the creator cared about the game and the characters. When I have the feeling that a lot of love and devotion have gone into a game (very obvious in RPGs and digital novels), I like the game much better.
Things that spoil games for me are:
Mandatory action parts (okay, I suck at action, so anything above extra easy is a game stopper for me).
Photos of real life persons used for normal characters in the game (Don't we see enough real life persons in our normal life?)
Extensive use of 3D rendering (again, I don't need extra-realistic stuff, and very often, games with such rendering tend to neglect other aspects I care more about).
Difficult to distinguish graphics (if I can't tell different graphics apart from each other, playing the game becomes rather tedious. This is why I do not like graphic sets for roguelikes, because in most cases, I find them to be making things less clear).
Well, I think that should describe my attitudes somewhat. I hope the information you were looking for is hidden somewhere in these lines.
Deathworks
-
I actually like these kind of discussions. In my eyes the following things define the quality of a game:
Immersion
Uniqueness
Content
Gamplay
Good Story
Open endedness
Fun
Not boring
Imagination provoking
Replay value (This is the area nearly all games on the market fail and DF actually manages to nail this aspect)
I think RPGS or RPG hybrids are the best kind of games these days, any kind of game where you get to become some person in a world filled with lore and political choices. I just started playing DF, now heres the thing I generally dont like strategy games as they are all just too similiar but DF seems to not just break the mold but smash it up into tiny pieces and thats the kind of stuff I love in games, if the devloper manages to couple fun , openendedness and non boring play with all this then you have a groundbreaking quality game.
Thats how I see it with what conforms to my personal tastes and actually if publishers actually listened to players gaming hopes and asspirations then gaming wouldnt be in such a shallow poor state that it is these days where they spend time employing ridiculous protection/3 days rental schemes rubbish at the massive expense of game quality and enjoyment.
Thats my contribution to this thread :)
-
Welcome back, Deathworks!
Well, my definition of quality of games:
FUN!
Of course.
I enjoy chess because it's FUN to whack the opposing player's piece one by one to death (of course, the pleasure when we wins... is just very good).
I have played many different genres of game, and I discover that I am a warmonger (really addicted to war games). I play FPS, Strategies, Arcade-Shooter (Touhou), wargames (HoI series), Simulations (DF!) because of the gameplay.
I play RPGs, Visual Novels, etc because of the story. It's like how I able to chew novels and manga so fast, because I enjoy the story.
I don't play tabletops, since no one here play any (the last tabletop I brought to play with my friends, Risk, become a disaster).
Also,
It seems that I have many things in common with Deathworks, altough I don't mind 2D and difficult graphic, or mandatory action part (Hey, I'm good in GoW!).
Consistency is ALWAYS good. Especially when the game is SF (Science-Fiction or Super-Fantasy (technically high Fantasy)).
Stories that pulls you into it are the BOMB! (TWEWY... Hell yeah!)
Oh, HoI use real life photos, so I'm a little sure that I don't mind that.
Well, this is a messy rant.
tl;dr: I'm a highly adaptable gamer who seeks consistency (? *_* I'm bad at synopsising)
-
Hmm.. I'm not going to read all the posts because I'm in a really cruddy mood and not in the mood for anything as inflammatory as it seems :P
But, if you want a seriously sociological, psychological outlook.. purely theoretical, of course...
We enjoy food that are nutritional to us (in the short term at least). That's why people enjoy a variety, and people with similar health enjoy similar things. They want to eat something they don't have enough of.
People are reluctant to try new food because they have no idea of its nutritional content. They will look for more food that provides a certain amount of nutrition, especially fat, sugar and carbohydrates, because it contains energy. Rice or potatoes - both have the same things.
We play games because our brain wants to train us in learning different types of things. That's why people enjoy a variety of things. They want to play something as long as it represents a challenge to them.
People don't try different genres once they find something that suits them. They will keep doing it as long as they learn from it.. people will want harder and harder games. DF is fun because you get to learn how your entire fortress collapses. Guitar Hero is only fun at the right difficulty level, not much higher, not much lower, because it's the only place you're gaining skill.
Also, there's the human instinct to be better than everyone else. The instinct to feel that you're more important than anyone else. That's a huge part of gameplay.
-
This is a very subjective stuff actually...well to me quality means: Deep and diverse gameplay. If the features in the game are quite unique, thats a + also. [Good example: Stardock's Elemental fantasy TBS] I don't care about graphics/sound at all. :)
-
Because I jump around constantly with games, never playing one for long, I need something that will bring me back.
I do that too! It's good to know that I'm not the only one; I always thought that there was something wrong with me.
-
Holy crap! Deathworks is back!
Anyways, I think that the very first games that you started to play influences your preferences greatly. My first computer game that I ever had was age of empires.(At the young age of 8.) Ever since then, I've had a special place in my heart for RTS games. I also have a rather short attention span, so my favourite game changes monthly, sometimes weekly. Generally random or open ended games like dwarf fortress keep my occupied for months on end.
In my eyes the quality that a game needs to keep me occupied for at least a week include:
Multiplayer, A good community, a degree of randomness, open endness, good modability, and the ability to run on my cruddy computer. :P As long as a game has these traits, then I will be happy.
-
I personally enjoy RTS, FPS, and many other strategy shooting hybrids. Not to say i don't enjoy RPG's, but they need to be action Oriented.
A good game to me needs to be innovative. It needs to force you to use your mind in new ways to beat the challenges in your way. For this reason, Company of Heroes has kept me sucked in for quite some time, considering it evolves differently every time.
Although graphics are fun, they DO NOT make a game. I think that good graphics + good gameplay = good game.
Fallout 3? Fallout 3 is cool. The atmosphere is intense. It is a game that sucks you in. Despite the fact that they totally ditched the style of Fallout 1+2, i can accept it as a playable game. Doom 3 in my opinion was a departure from Doom 1+2 (my favorite games of all time) and yet i still enjoyed it.
And yes, the easier to use game editors are, the more i generally enjoy the game. Warcraft 3 comes to mind.
And atmosphere is a big part too. For this reason i LOVED Diablo 1. It had this atmosphere that made you really feel what was going on. Diablo 2 i felt fell short in that way.
Yeah. Thats about it i think.
-
I find the game mechanics very important. This is the most important reason that I don't like Company of Heroes, the mechanics are just really bad. Accuracy for example is determined by the target you are shooting upon, which just makes me cry. The game Close Combat 5 however has rather realistic mechanics (well at least realistic enough so I dont notice the flaws) this makes the game really enjoyable. Health bars are usually also very irritating, if I stab someone in his back, I expect him to die, not lose 4 points of his magical health bar and turn around to kill me. not that it instantly becomes a bad game because of it, but it is just annoying ( Morrowind for example is still a good game)
Oblivion however had many improvement over the Morrowind engine, but just screwed things up by making everything leveled. You did not find good loot because you found the right place, no you got good loot because you are a high level.
physics can also add a lot to games. I still wonder why the gaming companies have never published a FPS with really destructable terrain.....
of course there a lot of things that just instantly destroy a game's fun when they are not handled properly, things such as poor AI (the bane of many games), poor interface (really annoying, probably the sole reason why I think that space empires IV is one of the best games ever made and SEV is just unplayable). Many game designers also seem to put all focus on graphics and neglect sound, while sound adds a lot more to a game then graphics do.
But the most important thing about a game is that it fits well together. I still find Ocarina of Time the best game ever made, but when you look at the different aspects they are nothing special, graphics? medicore, sound also, but still they fit the game perfectly. Of course the gameplay can be given nothing else than a 10. The game just has the perfect length, difficulty etc.
-
I think Okami is the best game ever made, but that's my oppinion.
I agree, graphics do not make a game good, its nice if a game is pretty looking, but it doesn't really matter.
Sound, rather important to me. It's what turns an adventure game into a horror.
But nothing matters if the gameplay is horrible.
That is what I find is the problem with modern games tend to be, everything is about how it looks, not how it plays.
Okami is perfect in all those ways, so thats why I find it so awesome.
(PS:I forgot to add it before, I am 16, and I'm not big on Fallout 3.)
-
Thanks for the nice responses so far. I'm glad you guys took the time to write so much out.
Hawkfrost: I find it hard to believe that if you like random things, you also like Japanese RPGs. It's odd because most JRPGs including the ones you listed all follow a complicit formula with only a few alterations here and there. If you like random, why do you also like JRPGs? Perhaps the word "random" isn't the word you are looking for?
Omath Erius: I interviewed a potential tenant a few days ago from Brunei. She was apparently the head of a Ragnarok Online guild and according to her, one of the largest in the game. They would frequently organize large scale real world gatherings to meet and greet each other. How is that not a sense of good community? Surely Ragnarok Online is about as KMMORPG as KMMORPGs get.
Deathworks: Glad to have you back. We share many same tastes actually and it's rare to find someone who admits that he can't tell the difference betweens levels in graphics quality. I am one of those people as well and I stipulate that we use our imagination to fill in the gaps that poor graphics leave behind. Thanks for the input! Though a question; how exactly do you know when a creator has put in his love?
Firefly: Hehe... what does, "not boring" mean? :P I personally dislike RPGs and RPG-hybrids for the exact same reason that you dislike strategy games. Interesting isn't it? Perhaps it's because we don't give enough chance to the other medium to express just how good each really is?
As a businessman, I have learned that attempting to listen to all your consumers is economic suicide. It's not possible, just like a government that can please even 50% of its people. Companies have to have the wits to select not only good ideas, but it needs to know which genius ideas they have to silence in the name of good business.
IndonesiaWarMinister: Consistency? I'm assuming something along the lines of immersion? You would be in line with Valve's line of thinking then, which goes out and above their way to provide constant and total immersion. Or so they claim to be able to do. Does this mean you don't like MMOs?
Muz: I think your cruddy mood might be affecting your dictation. And I disagree with your line of thought for a simple reason. I am a person and I don't do what you describe nor do I play games for the reasons you listed. Just as its a fallacy to assume what the people do is what you do, it's also a fallacy to assume that what you do is what people do. Don't you think so? In any case, I understand your case but I disagree with me and the rest of the posters being prime examples.
Tormy: I always believe that sound and music play a very big role in a great game. That's why I prefer it that games either have the best damn voice acting ever, or no voice acting at all. Music always sets the tone, subconsciously affects the heart and mind. Don't you think it's an important part of any game?
Fenrir: You're a wolf. It might be a point of concern.
Lambskin: I'm curious. If you have a short attention span but love multiplayer, what games do you play?
Spud & Antioch: Ahhh, this is what I like. Two opposing viewpoints on the same medium but both with good arguments. One says that mechanics make a game and thus, Company of Heroes (CoH) is great. The other says mechanics make a game and thus, CoH is terrible.
I think Antioch seeks more FPS qualities in his RTS, thus the problem of hitboxes and targeting in and RTS where such things isn't an issue. Spud, forgive me assumptions, would be quite jaded with standard RTSes and thus, considers the innovation that CoH brings along to be quite amazing.
Also, Antioch: I'm not a computer programmer though I understand that we are nowhere near actual AI. In fact, programming AI is a bloody difficult thing to do, far harder than coding trees or designing gameplay elements. How would you resolve this problem? Max Payne gave the illusion of amazing AI by actually have very strictly scripted bots and having no AI at all, but it sure as hell fooled everyone. Would that be a good solution, do you think?
-
Fenrir: You're a wolf. It might be a point of concern.
My being a wolf should be a concern, or that wolves are naturally persistant and patient creatures and I'm not?
It seems that I'm a walking point of concern, but that is a conversation beyond the scope of this topic.
-
Hi!
I am a bit overwhelmed with the warm greetings. I had not imagined I would be remembered that much. Thanks everyone for this kind welcome.
As for the question about love:
It is a gut feeling you get when you look at the details that were added to the game and also the way the game is being shared (actually that is a good hint while searching for a loved game).
Basically, you first have an impression of why the game was created or what kind of person the creator is. This may be very general and vague but could also be very concrete.
Then, you look at the details put into the game and look at details fitting with that expectation.
For example, one of my all-time-favorites is a Japanese RPG with a title which can be translated as "I'm not a hero!" and the download description gave a general impression of a parody of a standard RPG genre.
In that game, not only were there the standard cliche characters you would expect, they had their specific lines, small changes in their face graphics to express their moods. Dialogues were of good length and regularly ended in poking fun at the basics of the genre.
Even without the graphics and the detailed dialogues, the basic plot would have sufficed for the parody purpose, but it became obvious that the creators spend that much extra time on the game.
However, I have to admit that in the end, the most important measurement of how much love was added to a game is your own heart. It is hard to describe, but I think if an artist puts their heart into a creation, those who have similar preferences/feelings will simply feel that love. Sounds metaphysical, but I think there is simply something subtle in all creations that can convey that.
Deathworks
-
Spud & Antioch: Ahhh, this is what I like. Two opposing viewpoints on the same medium but both with good arguments. One says that mechanics make a game and thus, Company of Heroes (CoH) is great. The other says mechanics make a game and thus, CoH is terrible.
This is where Me and Antioch Differ. I The reason i think CoH is a great game is because the game mechanics (although somewhat unrealistic) keep the game moving. There is never a moment in CoH i am bored, because i am always moving men, capturing points, or microing a flank attack.
On the topic of "what unit you are shooting at reduces accuracy" or whatever Antioch Said. It does somewhat make sense that a more veteran soldier would be hit less. If you are fresh out of base camp, you could easily forget to keep your head down etc, a veteran would have battlefield dangers drilled into his head, and would be much more able to avoid injuries on the battlefield.
CoH pretty much ruined every other RTS for me. I can't really enjoy Supreme commander anymore cuz it really boils down to resource management and spamming units. In CoH you must actively take cover and choose targets of opportunity because a well placed MG can destroy entire squads and reduce your movement options greatly. Also, every position has a counter. MG? Armored vehicles or flamethrowers. Sniper? motorbike.
To me, the idea of ranges modifying accuracy helps too. VolksGrenadiers are very efficient long range, but are beaten by enemy riflemen up close.
This, of course, is all from multiplayer. The SP sucks in that game.
I think Antioch seeks more FPS qualities in his RTS, thus the problem of hitboxes and targeting in and RTS where such things isn't an issue. Spud, forgive me assumptions, would be quite jaded with standard RTSes and thus, considers the innovation that CoH brings along to be quite amazing.
Pretty much true. Though i do appreciate Realism in games, done improperly it can really wreck it. Standard RTS's are pretty boring, although i do enjoy Starcraft.
-
Thanks for the nice responses so far. I'm glad you guys took the time to write so much out.
Hawkfrost: I find it hard to believe that if you like random things, you also like Japanese RPGs. It's odd because most JRPGs including the ones you listed all follow a complicit formula with only a few alterations here and there. If you like random, why do you also like JRPGs? Perhaps the word "random" isn't the word you are looking for?
I have multiple personalities.
Also, I mostly play CRPGs, not JRPGs, but some, like Tatics and Disgaea, are fun enough to play over again, because you can do things differently each runthrough.
And hey Deathworks, you might not remember me, but I was sad to see you go, you had many good points and discussions.
-
welcome back deathworks
i enjoy gameplay and playabilit (is that a good word to use?)
freedom in a game is a good thing, if done well. good stor and some thought involved are also great. ultra-modern graphics aren't a must,like any good DF player will say, but they are a good thing (if there is a good game behind them. otherwise, i'll just watch a film).
i like games like age of empires, age of mithology, age of (insert anything here), total war games (medieval, shogun), i like warcraft, but i also like simulations like sim city and DF. i like also civilization games (my favourite one is civilization: call to power).
the thing i enjoy most is that the game is still interesting after a while.
freedom, as i said, is very important, more things you can do better it is (unless developers break everything. can't think about any example, but i think it is possible), but there can be good games without much freedom. a game i enjoyed in the past was indiana jones and the fate of atlantis. it was a point and click game and as such limited on what i could do, but i liked it a lot. but then it was a game of my childhood, and they are always the best.
i am 16
-
Hello!
(I know I should stop posting now; it is late in the evening here, and I got a nasty cold).
Quite optimistically, I hope my previous post makes some sense.
Hawkfrost: I have to admit that I have a difficult time placing your name (^_^;;
I am really awful at remembering people and names, so most of the time really unusual names (like IndonesiaWarMinister) or unusual avatars stick in my mind (like the owl of Neoskel, I think, or the animated character in front of Umiman's computer).
Actually, I think the discussion between you and Umiman points to another question that needs consideration here - replayable games vs. one-shot games. The question is, do people only enjoy replayable games or one-shot games or could they enjoy both? And if they enjoyed both, would some criteria differ? I could imagine that some people enojying both types of games actually internally consider them to be completely different things...
On the other hand, we are more perceptive than we realize, so some criteria may be obscure even to ourselves, thus leading to occasional odd favorites outside our expected realms of activity.
Reading more thoroughly through the posts
.
.
.
Umiman: I am not quite sure what confuses you about "Consistency" as mentioned by IndonesiaWarMinister? The way I see it, consistency and immersion are completely different things.
Consistency refers to the laws of nature in a world, to the laws and mechanisms of society and social groups. You should be able to have expectations about how things take place and if those expectations are not met, you need a good reason for it or at least the hint at such a good reason. Of course, with satirical games or comedy games, you can have deliberate inconsistencies even without breaking the immersion of the player. In fact, many game worlds would quickly fall apart if you really thoroughly checked their consistency (beyond the obvious level) - for instance, in a world with winged animals available for riding and magical powers, standard castle fortifications would not be really worth the trouble. Still, you could get immersed in these worlds even if their fundamentals are inconsistent.
Of course, this entire discussion sheds some interesting light on the DF fan community. I think the emphasis on experimental/free form/varied gaming is probably an influence of the location. That is, in a more neutral context, we would probably see more people favoring solid, standardized gameplay.
Deathworks
-
I'm actually not sure what makes me like a game. I'm very eclectic when it comes to most things in life. But I do know what I like in games.
RPG elements, stats, skills, etc. I tend to like that in most games, as it's a way of making your character or whatever it is a bit different, a bit more unique, a bit more fit to the way you play. Not in a specialization sense however, I'm a generalist at heart, I like being able to do everything and anything at all times.
Dynamically generated content. I tend to find trends, plots and patterns a bit too easy to foresee. Most stories, maps, characters are way too obvious for my taste. I like it when things are random and maybe even don't make sense at times. I like being able to play the same game twice and yet see different things, maps, characters.
Simulations. I like real consequences, real punishments, real rewards. I suppose perma death fits in this as well. I really like it when if you screw up in a game, there's no save to go back to. If you kill everyone in a village, they're gone. No respawn. It doesn't have a huge weight on my (dis)liking but it's nice to see things like that. But it's a coin for me and on the other side, I like the fast paced and reflexive games to be more lenient on death, but I like it to be harsh on everything else, like blowing a city up in F2. And as much as I liked Daggerfall, I hated it that everyone knew who you were, that was kind of sad and very non-simulationish.
Multiplayer Or Not(tm). I'm a sucker for co-op and online games. I like pvp, but not much 1v1, I like it better when it's team vs team. On the other hand, there are also lots of single player games that are good, but I usually like to avoid the one-man-army kind of thing. If I can have companions, I will get them.
Indolence. I hate doing everything myself, period. Computers are meant to do annoying things for you and such thing should be present in games. No clicking around, no setting everything up, people gotta program things better to do things for you, including in games. I hate micromanagement unless it's something substantial, which, is more often than not, regular management. (Get rid of DF job settings, kthx, let every dorf do everything and decide what they wanna do themselves, in a smart way.)
No Limits. Yes, I want to kill children, I want to bring down that building, and I want to smack that stupid quest giver in the face and do something else.
Quantity and Quality over Graphics. GTA areas became tiny from 3 to 4. I'd rather have that huge area from GTA San Andreas instead of the puny 3 islands GTA4 has. I'd rather have the bland-everything-looks-the-same gigantic map from Daggerfall instead of that moronic tiny area of Oblivion. Same goes to weapons and items and skills. I'd rather have more choices than some less more polished, or should I say specific, ones.
Fun and Wow Factor. I'm with Yahtzee on this one. Whenever a game can surprise me, that's grand. Whenever a game feels like it's reading this huge well written and unforeseeable novel, that's awesome. What happened to Monkey Island? Grim Fandango? Even the sad sale results of Psychonauts? Retards want instant gore satisfaction all the time. I mean, it's fun to go frag someone in a game once in a while, but I also would like some more smart funny game instead of all fucking frag all the freaking time. Voice acting and decent writing can sometimes save a real crappy gameplay.
I suppose that's all. And me? Brazillian, 28, programmer, physics grad, self-employed, made my own games, my first one was when I was 10ish. I always know when a game sucks at a certain thing, it's because the programmer was a retard, or forced into retardment[sic] by a higher corp force.
By the way, if you're going to use that in some wannabe serious demographic, please know that I might like a game that has nothing of that if it strikes me as fun. =p
-
Age: 17
The first game I ever played was Age of empires one. I got it for one Christmas (i think I was 7-8) and played it on my fathers Windows NT.
I remember being too scared to play against AI as I would always lose. I think I did the first mission in the campaign, the tutorial and maybe one deathmatch. After that I repeatedly played the migration random maps as the AI would not leave their initial island. I would build a dock, go over to the main island and build a massive city with way too many houses (one for each unit), multiples of every building and walls everywhere. Then when I have had enough, I would build a massive army and attack the AI's small starting island which would still be in the first age. The other thing I did with AOE was play around with the map editor and make completely unbalanced maps and then obliterate the AI.
Then a couple of years after I got the game we got the internet and I found out about cheats. Feeling a little safer against AI I started to play the campaign again winning every mission with the help of cheats namely bigdaddy and winwinwin.
It was about four years after getting AOE for Christmas that I got my second video game, UT2003. I was actually going to get Age of Mythology but for some reason was convinced by some guy in the store to get UT instead. When I got home I found out it didn't work on my (newish)PC because my only graphics card was an integrated Geforce2. A year later after all the while being unable to play my game I get the new graphics card and play my heart out on offline UT2003 for a year or two. I was the only one of my friends who had a PC capable of playing games, they all had consoles. I laugh now when I look back at the quality of games I played, although they were games of renown, I wasn't really playing them as they were supposed to be played. I enjoyed them much more than the games I play today, probably because I was restricted to the two games and felt much more attached to them.
Since then, I have played many other games and my collection grew quite a bit but unfortunately my PC hasn't been upgraded. My friends (who used to have consoles) have all bought pretty new PC's and we started a LAN group. Nowadays I mostly play the single player parts of games like DF, Battle for middle earth (1+2), UT2004, Morrowind, Empire earth 2 etc. These are games that can be played over and over again and each time is different. I have also played through my share of linear FPS's and RPG's but I can only play through them once or not even through fully as I get bored of them rather quickly. For example I am up to the last mission in HL2 and I can't really be bothered doing it even though the end is so close. Same goes with NWN and dungeon siege. The one linear game I did enjoy was Star Wars Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast, great game.
At the fortnightly LAN's I go to I play a whole bunch of multiplayer games like CoD, C&C series, TF2 etc. I would play these at home but unfortunately I am limited by my connection speed.
So I guess for me a quality game is a game that you can play over and over again and not be bored by it.
-
Age:15
The thing I like most in my games, and ruins the immersion for me if it's not there, is the ability to do whatever I want to do, with logical consequences and reactions. This is a pretty big problem in most of my games, especially the so called RPG's. They promise the most in gameplay and open-endedness, so how come I can't kill that quest giver? How come whether I hit that dude or not depends on mathematical calculations, not the fact that the arrow hit right between the eyes? Some games (the flash game Flow comes to mind) manage to immerse you completely with rather limited options, while others with teams of developers working on them with hundreds of detailed options leave you feeling frustrated.[/rant]
Oh, and I like multiplayer games, because killings more fun when your doing it to someone you know (and the human brain is a much greater challenge than AI), and FPS/Action games I also find enjoyable as they give lots of opportunity for unforseen/funny occurences which are often lacking in the heavily-scripted RPG's.
The above things are why I love DF so much, especially funny random/everyday occurences and the ability to do things with real (if over-the-top) consequences.
EDIT: Oh, and unlike Soulwynd, I prefer to avoid RPG skills/stats where possible, as they ruin the elements of spontaneity/randomness, and also reduce the effects of the players gaming skill, instead depending on how much time he's spent fighting the same monster repeatedly. I do like the Final Fantasy games though, but they are the exception to the rule.
-
- Gameplay that is thought out. But it's not really a game breaker for me, such as how I love the hell out of Dynasty warriors since I was a lad.
- A story and dialogue that takes into consideration that some people actually may care about what it consists of, such as games like Baldur's Gate, Fallout 1, Gothic.
- Music and sound effects of quality. I like a game where the sound effects feel real and not forced, like a loud ding whenever you click a button (See: Mount and Blade, which has some of the best in-battle sound effects with some modding, but the annoying CLANG when you press a button), and more importantly an option to turn off the music if it's bad(It's becoming an OCD thing for me, I need my music playing, no matter what, in the game, Winamp is on nearly 24/7 on my computer).
- Playability. By this, I mean the game does not just drag on, you have motivation to continue, not just by getting an achievement or some mundane skill increase, but by making you, the person, feel compelled to continue for reasons unknown.
- Re-playability. I'm fine with old games which had linear stories considering the size and market restraints, but not now, games which make you ride a rail to the end are horrible in my opinion, such as every Call Of Duty(Or FPS of the same category) game ever.
- Graphics, I don't care. I really don't. Long as there's no immersion breaking graphics in there, like a guy with a head on his leg.
-
Actually, I think the discussion between you and Umiman points to another question that needs consideration here - replayable games vs. one-shot games. The question is, do people only enjoy replayable games or one-shot games or could they enjoy both? And if they enjoyed both, would some criteria differ? I could imagine that some people enojying both types of games actually internally consider them to be completely different things...
Let me spell it out for you R-E-P-L-A-Y-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y
A one shot game is only fun one time. This leads to me beating it, and then never playing it agian.
This is why i enjoy RTS so much. Online is different every time as strategies vary from palyer to player
I see RTS games as a set of tools with which to build a chair. Everyone can do it differently, but using the right set of tools for the job will lead to a stronger, sturdier chair.
And SoulWynd? i must disagree with your Quantity and Quality over graphics point
Although i agree with you that graphics aren't a big deal. I would MUCH rather fewer, more balanced, more polished weapons ETC than i would a million samey ones.
I mean, doom 1 had only 6 firearms, and each one was good at ONE thing. If there were 6 more, where would they fit in? Each weapon was specalized in its use (mostly).
I say Quality over Quantity. Within limits of course. i dont want only 3 weapons polished to a shine. I think that (depending on the game) around 8-10 fits in best. (funnily enough, most RTS's have around that amount of combat units. :D)
-
Hi!
Woo, Deathworks is back! Anyway, I gotta be on topic occasionally:
I have to admit that I have a lousy track record as far as finishing games is concerned. Persona, Persona 2 Innocent Sin, and Persona 2 Eternal Punishment are probably the first games I really saw to the end.
I loved Persona's atmosphere so much, and the first person dungeons didn't bother me at all. On the other hand, the really, really high encounter rate followed by the exceptionally slow battle system drove me away. Maybe I'll try again one day, though.
I briefly tried Eternal Punishment, and enjoyed it. It solved what I didn't like about Persona; however, the atmosphere changed. Not for the worse or better, it just wasn't the same. Still wonderful though. Persona 3 is also a wicked fun game, that kept its predecessors difficulty...
...
I think my favorite type of games are ones that simulate a world that can grow with *or* without player action, and especially ones that do this for any amount of time. Dwarf Fortress is shaping up into that game, I think.
One of my favorite series is the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series; particularly the later ones (10 strikes me as the pinnacle of its genre.) Everything progresses no matter what you do, and the game doesn't require you to be anything at all. I once spent a game as a reclusive master in the mountains, solving small problems around my home city (like an occasional thief) or debating politics. Sometimes I'd even improve the city, or fight off invaders with my own personal army of volunteer soldiers. The most fun ever was leading them into a battle between a lord I liked and one I didn't, and joining in against his enemies. I turned the tide of battle at its bleakest point and was rewarded with a fortune in gold by the lord and an offer to join him with a good rank. The game did well in convincing you there was a world, living and breathing.
A game that grows like a simulation yet offers action and/or entertainment like one that doesn't is ideal. Especially a game that does this in an unusual genre, mixing free-roaming or empire-type gameplay with say, action. Something I always wanted to see was a sort of River City Ransom in an entirely non-linear city-sandbox, fighting or leading gangs around and all that. Some weird cross of genres that provide everything I'd like in a game.
That being said, I still play entirely scripted games, especially old ones, for the same reason I still read books. Some of my favorite games are entirely scripted: Terranigma, Cave Story and Baldur's Gate to name a few. They're just less fun every time you play them, unfortunately. The surprise and mystique works at full strength only once, unless you suffer from amnesia or have a really awful memory. I do, anyway. I've still played Baldur's Gate II enough to memorize half the dialog.
...
I'm entirely torn on the RPG / Chance / Stats vs Reflex / User Skill debate. On one hand, I love knowing that my failure or success was a direct result of what I put into the game. On the other hand, I love all the details an RPG system can keep track of. Some sort of balance is ideal for me; the sort where user skill can make a way out of no way, but luck can make someone who has no chance of victory ascend over their enemies in an epic Dwarf Fortress Ass-Kicking Baby way.
Graphics are completely optional as long as they're not just plain grotesque. By grotesque, I don't mean 8-bit color and 640x480 VGA. Or less-- I enjoyed Lords of Midnight extensively, and that game had like four to eight colors. I mean like, somebody took five minutes in MS-Paint to conjure up the visuals. I'm even an avid MUD fan, at times.
I'm gonna stop here before I Ramble On.
-
It's becoming an OCD thing for me, I need my music playing, no matter what, in the game
It's the same for me. If the music isn't playing, my ears start to ache a little, like they're straining to hear something that isn't there.
-
And SoulWynd? i must disagree with your Quantity and Quality over graphics point
Although i agree with you that graphics aren't a big deal. I would MUCH rather fewer, more balanced, more polished weapons ETC than i would a million samey ones.
I know some people disagree. But I hate balance and lack of variety. Balance in games is a gamekiller to me. Life isn't balanced, nothing from the moment you take your first breath to the moment you die is balanced. Unless, perhaps if you believe in some god, karma, or santa claus. I'd rather have a choice between a dozen swords than to pick between a sword and an axe, both with supreme graphics and different gameplay.
I'd pick the sword if that was the case. Even if the axe was infinitely superior. That's what I like, that's who I am.
I don't twink either and people who twink do not bother me. I don't care about ending up with a nerfed design if it's the design I like. I suppose I try to twink that design the best I can, but that's my choice.
Choice earns $$$ from me. (Daggerfall)
Lack of variety becomes warez. (Oblivion)
-
How come whether I hit that dude or not depends on mathematical calculations, not the fact that the arrow hit right between the eyes?
(...)
EDIT: Oh, and unlike Soulwynd, I prefer to avoid RPG skills/stats where possible, as they ruin the elements of spontaneity/randomness, and also reduce the effects of the players gaming skill, instead depending on how much time he's spent fighting the same monster repeatedly. I do like the Final Fantasy games though, but they are the exception to the rule.
That's because you're playing a role-playing game and having your wizard who's crap at using a bow hit someone between the eyes just because you can do it thanks to your FPS skills would be pretty shitty role-playing. </master of the obvious>
Presentation is a different matter though. Where the arrow went could've been calculated mathematically rather than whether or not it hit. That's how a well coded game does it (Mount & Blade), having it fly through the target based on a hit/miss calculation is how a badly coded game does it (Morrowind, not to say that the game is bad overall).
-
Lambskin: I'm curious. If you have a short attention span but love multiplayer, what games do you play?
I have a short attention span in that I play most games for a few days before never playing it again. Multiplayer increases that attention span for awhile. And for the games that I play? I'll play anything as long as it interests me. Right now I'm playing Elona and Cortex Command.
-
I know some people disagree. But I hate balance and lack of variety. Balance in games is a gamekiller to me. Life isn't balanced, nothing from the moment you take your first breath to the moment you die is balanced. Unless, perhaps if you believe in some god, karma, or santa claus. I'd rather have a choice between a dozen swords than to pick between a sword and an axe, both with supreme graphics and different gameplay.
I'd pick the sword if that was the case. Even if the axe was infinitely superior. That's what I like, that's who I am.
I don't twink either and people who twink do not bother me. I don't care about ending up with a nerfed design if it's the design I like. I suppose I try to twink that design the best I can, but that's my choice.
Choice earns $$$ from me. (Daggerfall)
Lack of variety becomes warez. (Oblivion)
I imagine i am seeing this from an RTS perspective. Although life is unbalanced. I am one of those peopel who hates to get 1 shot-killed from a stupidly powerful weapon. I think that balance is every weapon being able to be beaten.
Lets use your Sword - Axe comparison.
In this situation, you say the Axe may be much greater than the sword. Lets say, the axe does 7 damage and the sword does 4.
If the differences ended there, and all other weapons did around 4 damage, the axe may be considered "unbalanced" due to its much higher damage output.
Lets add a few more things. lets say, although the Axe does 7 damage, its attack speed is only 3
Whereas the sword, much more nimble, has an attack speed of 5.
In this case, the Axe will have a run for its money considering that the sword gets to strike almost twice before the axe can strike once.
In this way i want balance. I have NO problems with a weapon being very powerful, i just think that smart/ strategic play should ALWAYS beat pure brute force, if you get my drift.
So using a long range weapon vs a slow, close range specalist is a much better choice than throwing weak close combat people vs heavy close combat people.
For an RPG, i too would like 10 + swords. Like Diablo, with randomly generated ones. Even then though, there were only a few different sword types.
What i am saying is that to create many unpolished weapons CAN lead to game unbalance and damage the experience of the player.
And like i said, 8-10 weapons is prime. If there are 8-10 of every type that seems more applicable to an RPG. FPS games are more about skill than stats anyway
I also dont see how "Balance" can be a game killer. I dont mean every weapon is equal, i dont mean Every weapon is useful either. but you have to have some type of balance otherwise a majority of people hog the best weapon and all other weapons become useless due to the widespread use of the most powerful weapons
-
Well, in that case I don't recommend you play Operation 7 which, for probably being a korean game turned into an american beta, really caught my attention. It's a modern mmofps. One hit on the head is kill, always. I became really addicted to it. Maybe you shouldn't play S4 either, the sniper rifle charges and becomes one hit kill.
Of course, both games are based on player skill and not some fictitious character skill.
And perhaps, balance is in the eye of the beholder. I like games where a recently created noob can smack the veteran on the face. Specially in RPGs. That, for me, is game balance because everyone has the same chance of doing something even if it actually is unbalanced.
On the same note, I hate rock-paper-scissors schemes from RTS, I also hate the notion that if player A kills player B and players B kills player C, then A is stronger than C.
-
As a self-proclaimed expert RTS player, I beg to disagree. Depending on your RTS, and most people are quick to assume that the mechanics propelling Starcraft, Age of Empires, and Warcraft are the same as those running today's RTSes, your fortune on the field of battle can vary from your skill at diplomacy all the way to your strategic sense.
For games like Supreme Commander, Medieval, or Company of Heroes, there's no need to memorize unit stats or complex click-by-click strategies. You just need your wits and cunning and the ability to forsee your enemy's movements. The more complex the game, the more your chances of victory changes due to your own personal skill.
Just like an FPS, simply because you are up against 5 other enemies does not mean you lose. The chances are high, but your skill determines the victor. It's not as simple as rock-paper-scissors because a rock in real life can crush scissors, provided you know how to use it.
Try to avoid simple generalizations. It's the fastest way to lead to a flamewar. Soulwynd, please tone down your rhetoric. We're not trying to prove which genre is better. The purpose is to try and appreciate other formats of gaming. Same goes for you Spud. I know I don't have any moderator powers, but I'm sure you understand.
-
For me a good game is a game that can allow me to play my way not push me down this specific line of storyline. Games like half life 2 and freespace are shit in my eyes, and I know i'm going to get flamed for saying that, but its what I think, they don't offer any freedom of choice, except maybe what weapon you use, thats not freedom in my eyes, in then end its like being followed around by a guy with a gun to your back telling you what to do. "but I wanna go fishing" "SCREW YOU, YOUR GONNA DESTROY THE COLLUMBINE AND THATS THAT"
MMO's are fun to me though, as long as their not WoWlikes which all non-mmo players seem to think mmos are. Eve is by far my favorite MMO, a game that allows you a great deal of freedom and allowing you to fight for something bigger then yourself, not follow a bunch of quests. Sadly I can't play EvE cause of graphics card issues.. :'(
Games like RTW:EB, Dwarf fortress, Sword of the Stars, and X3-Reunion (TC to much for my computer =/ ) are my favorite games, giving you a backstory and letting you loose.
Despite my love of 4x and Turn based Strat games, I generally don't like RTSes, they are fun but RTS developers are often idiots who love forcing you through linear story lines if you don't want to play multiplayer or skirmish, skirmishes often get boring after the first couple times of DOING THE EXACT SAME THING, and multi player-wise the last time I had any sort of skill in an RTS was like in 2003 when I was a star trek fag and got quite good in Star Trek: Armada 2
-
Try to avoid simple generalizations. It's the fastest way to lead to a flamewar. Soulwynd, please tone down your rhetoric. We're not trying to prove which genre is better. The purpose is to try and appreciate other formats of gaming. Same goes for you Spud. I know I don't have any moderator powers, but I'm sure you understand.
Try to avoid telling other people what to do or say. We were talking about likes and dislikes and you're the only one getting worked up about this. Take the explanation we gave as data for your gamer research.
He disagreed with me, I disagreed with him, we both explained why our tastes are different and that was it. If I read correctly, you also disagreed with me but for different reasons and nobody is annoying you. Except for now. But because you're telling me what to say. Which is not going to happen. Unless it was toady or his brother. But then they wouldn't get donations from me. I believe you get the point.
To be fair, I dislike RTS and the ones I know are pretty much rock-paper-scissors, and of course there's a great bunch of player skill involved in any game, but any gameplay that's based on rock-paper-scissors, be it from RTS or NOT, I dislike. Doesn't mean I wont play it. I played supreme commander (the free one, whatever the name was) online for a while. But it's not something that will get me hyped up.
MMO's are fun to me though, as long as their not WoWlikes which all non-mmo players seem to think mmos are. Eve is by far my favorite MMO, a game that allows you a great deal of freedom and allowing you to fight for something bigger then yourself, not follow a bunch of quests. Sadly I can't play EvE cause of graphics card issues.. :'(
I'm a MMO player and I actually dislike both WoW and EVE. Because one is work and the other one is scam. There's an EVE thread somewhere where I explain myself about EVE and why people disagree with me on that, at least some people.
MMOs come and go for me. Most aren't sandboxy enough and most that are, have a real sucky game system that isn't fun to play at all and value payment time over simply letting people having fun.
I'm playing Anarchy online again, but I played City of Heroes for a long time. I really liked SWG after the crap they did got better polished. I still like Warhammer and plan on playing it again soon. I'm also in a couple alphas and in a few betas. I suppose I'm active in the MMO community and I know a few developers. *shrugs*
I get bored too fast.
-
Well, in that case I don't recommend you play Operation 7 which, for probably being a korean game turned into an american beta, really caught my attention. It's a modern mmofps. One hit on the head is kill, always. I became really addicted to it. Maybe you shouldn't play S4 either, the sniper rifle charges and becomes one hit kill.
Hmm. Perhaps what i was trying to say didnt get across.
I do enjoy Realistic games, and there is NO reason a one hit shot to the head shouldnt kill. My problem is when the Sniper rifle is consistently more powerful than an assault rifle in close range, say. In those games, im sure at least 75% of the time in close range an assault rifle beats the sniper rifle.
In this way, a player with an assault rifle would need to play smart in order to avoid 1 shot death. He must play stealthily and strategically in order to best the sniper.
If the Sniper beat the assault rifle in close combat 75% of the time, i might consider it unbalanced. Of course it varies due to player skill, but generally Assault rifle < Sniper at close range.
I play RO and CS:S, those games (Especially RO) are realistic and in the case of RO extremley annoying at times. but I do enjoy them.
Although in certian RTS's there is a rock paper sissors mechanic, i gravitate towards games where skill is victory. CoH has just this, as although Infantry are generally weak against tanks, good use of AT weapons and cover can guarentee victory against even the most powerful enemy vehicle.
Try to avoid simple generalizations. It's the fastest way to lead to a flamewar. Soulwynd, please tone down your rhetoric. We're not trying to prove which genre is better. The purpose is to try and appreciate other formats of gaming. Same goes for you Spud. I know I don't have any moderator powers, but I'm sure you understand.
Yeah, i dont really care what he is saying. We are comparing points, although as we go on i see our views converging. Im not sure what im trying to say is getting across however.
.:EDIT:.
I care what he is saying, but im not going to get worked up over it :P
-
Alright then. I'd like to keep this discussion going as long as it can. Though $10 says your arguments at this rate won't reach any form of positive conclusion as you refuse to see eye to eye on any matter... though it doesn't help for me to say that I guess...
In any case:
Rilder: Do you believe in too much freedom? Suppose someone made a game that was so perfect in every way that you could do everything, anything, and whatever you could possibly imagine. No goals, no boundaries, no score, nothing. Do you think that would make a good game?
-
Yes. Besides the controversy, it'd be awesome.
-
I can't imagine it would be good though. Bear in mind I dislike games like Fantastic Contraption when I don't have a goal to work to... I need an objective to function.
Heh heh... I guess total freedom isn't my thing is it?
Could you try to explain why it would be good? Like, try to put the reason in words if possible.
-
Hello!
Okay, I can't resist going OT here a bit.
Keiseth: Are you playing the original Japanese versions or which versions of Persona? I have heard rumors that Persona 2: Innocent Sin is missing in the American release, making Persona 2: Eternal Punishment kind of confusing/meaningless. In order to understand Eternal Punishment you need to have played Innocent Sin.
As for atmosphere, I think Innocent Sin is best, followed by Persona and the least atmospheric being Eternal Punishment because of its focus on blood shed and violence.
I haven't played any of the other parts, so I can't comment on them.
Sorry about the digression, but the Persona series simply has a very special place in my heart.
Deathworks
-
Sadly I can't play EvE cause of graphics card issues.. :'(
1) they just released an update which supposedly fixed some game breaking graphical related bugs.
2) always play eve with vsync (and triple buffering while were at it). Sometimes they release a client that doesnt cap your framerate at all, and when you have simple stuff on the screen, the gpu happily starts to draw 200+ frames, which tends to warm some of the vidcards up quite a bit, til they shut down.
-
I can't imagine it would be good though. Bear in mind I dislike games like Fantastic Contraption when I don't have a goal to work to... I need an objective to function.
Well, I am too. I can't do anything when I don't know what to do.
That's why, even a little backstory is a major help to me.
At any rate, story is 1st, and than gameplay for me (so I can play VNs)
-
Well, yeah, my point was kinda that trying to define the "quality of a game" is about as hopeless as trying to define what food is "good for you". You can toss a million people at the problem and everyone will get their own ideas. Heck, you can perform experiments, whatever. There are game theorists who do so. The result is that we're getting worse and worse games.
I'd like to point out two games which is the result of game theory - Spore and Empire Earth 2 and 3. Both of them rely very heavily on game theory. Are they fun? There are lots of games that use no proper game theory at all: Baldur's Gate, Fallout 1 and 2, Super Mario, etc, etc. They're obviously flawed.. but fun.
It's.. complex, really. You can't really say a genre is good. I'm going to assume that each and every person here is the type who enjoys Dwarf Fortress. But everyone enjoys a different genre. DF appeals to well.. the most complicated form of gamer, but some of us still love shiny graphics, button mashers, FPSes, etc.
I'm willing to bet that not one of you can find the solution to this simple question. If you do, then make a game and it'll be worth millions. Seriously.
It's a whole mess of complicated variables that only some mathematical genius like Toady One can figure out. Maybe he has ;)
-
Well, in that case I don't recommend you play Operation 7 which, for probably being a korean game turned into an american beta, really caught my attention. It's a modern mmofps. One hit on the head is kill, always. I became really addicted to it. Maybe you shouldn't play S4 either, the sniper rifle charges and becomes one hit kill.
Hmm. Perhaps what i was trying to say didnt get across.
Oh, I know you were being geared towards the 'always win' twinky weapons. I play anarchy online right now and the game has those sort of weapons and gears. I don't mind it, people have to invest a load of time to get that sort of thing and the pvp that matters is very competitive like that. It's hard for a newbie to get into the towers (player built resource extractors) pvp just because of that, but there are other functions those players can do, like buff and debuff people while they fight and try to stay clear from the one hit kills.
When I mentioned the rock-paper-scissors I didn't mean skill didn't matter and I do think the scheme is present in every RTS, modern or not. It's still there (as far as I know, if you know a RTS that really isn't RPS, please tell me so I can give it a try). You can work around it and make paper wrap the scissors to death, but it's still there nevertheless. I dislike it because like I said before, I don't like playing specialists but that's my reason. I also don't like micromanaging units, I like them when they are smarter like in the original supreme commander. Or when the action is turn based, like in MAX 1 & 2.
Suppose someone made a game that was so perfect in every way that you could do everything, anything, and whatever you could possibly imagine. No goals, no boundaries, no score, nothing. Do you think that would make a good game?
I will quote a friend on this when I told him to imagine the day we'd have a huge Matrix-like game simulation with all and any possible genres. He said, "Oh god no, please no. I'd never leave it."
I agree with him. I'd never leave it. As to why? I suppose it's because some of us play games because it has things we cannot do in real life, you get to fool around with something you will never do. Of course, sometimes it's more like reading a book, which is good too. Sometimes it's just fun, which is also good.
Spore
<sporetroll>
2005's was fun even to just watch.
They screwed it up, it wasn't the game idea's fault. They screwed it up.
</sporetroll>
-
When I mentioned the rock-paper-scissors I didn't mean skill didn't matter and I do think the scheme is present in every RTS, modern or not. It's still there (as far as I know, if you know a RTS that really isn't RPS, please tell me so I can give it a try). You can work around it and make paper wrap the scissors to death, but it's still there nevertheless. I dislike it because like I said before, I don't like playing specialists but that's my reason. I also don't like micromanaging units, I like them when they are smarter like in the original supreme commander. Or when the action is turn based, like in MAX 1 & 2.
Sins of a Solar empire has no Rock paper scissors as far as i can think of.
If you think about it though, i can't see RTS Being rts without certian units being more powerful against others. Even if you designed the game with no RPS, im sure you would still find units that are better at destroying certian units than others.
I suppose in the real world it works in a Somewhat RPS fashion. (not to be too general but) MG's generally defeat (or at least demobilize) infantry due to the fact that infantry dont want to be shot. Tanks defeat MG's cuz bullets dont do jack to armor. And so on with AT guns and other weaponry. Not only that but Tanks are limited because of the cost that goes into creating and maintaining a tank.
I think :PAlright then. I'd like to keep this discussion going as long as it can. Though $10 says your arguments at this rate won't reach any form of positive conclusion as you refuse to see eye to eye on any matter... though it doesn't help for me to say that I guess...
I think our opinions are alot closer than we might think. Although i like RTS and he does not, i think that generally we see eye to eye, it is hard for me to explain things over the internet.
-
For me, i think a great game needs x things, style, substance, graphics, depth, and a good story and most of all. Fun. These apply to all games imho. Style, mostly just doing something different that no-one else has considered and making it work. Substance being able to carry out that style to a good degree of professionalism. Graphics goes without saying, who'd want an fps where it were a block fighting another block? Depth, well they have to have something that will make that game unique. Soemthing you'll want to spend time playing to get better, do something different or somesuch. And a good story doesn't apply to all games, but a good one is nice. I enjoy reading the backstories of certain places, little snippets of cool trivia. Biggest example is eve-online. And ofcourse, the game has to be fun to me. Which to others it may not be, but again, eye of the beholder scenario.
-
Sins of a Solar empire has no Rock paper scissors as far as i can think of.
Somewhat. But it's a stardock game and like always they manage to hype me then disappoint me into a lethargic boredom. I tried to give it a chance more than a dozen times. All failed and I ended up watching Boston Legal while playing it.
As for RPS in real life, i was going to say something but I suddenly went into a lazy mood because I'm full from lunch... So maybe later.
-
Somewhat. But it's a stardock game and like always they manage to hype me then disappoint me into a lethargic boredom. I tried to give it a chance more than a dozen times. All failed and I ended up watching Boston Legal while playing it.
Noted, it does take some patience to play Sins, I have enjoyed the 2 or 3 games i managed to get through :P.
Like I said, COH has a little RPS, but generally certian units work better in certian situations, not against certian other units.
-
I actually enjoyed company of heroes. There was another game similar that was fun to play online too. But I don't get hooked on RTS for some reason. Maybe starcraft2 will help, but it seems like it wont, from the pvp movies on youtube. :(
-
I actually enjoyed company of heroes. There was another game similar that was fun to play online too. But I don't get hooked on RTS for some reason. Maybe starcraft2 will help, but it seems like it wont, from the pvp movies on youtube. :(
Men of War will be much better. ;)
-
Rilder: Do you believe in too much freedom? Suppose someone made a game that was so perfect in every way that you could do everything, anything, and whatever you could possibly imagine. No goals, no boundaries, no score, nothing. Do you think that would make a good game?
Damn right it'd be a good game.
1) they just released an update which supposedly fixed some game breaking graphical related bugs.
2) always play eve with vsync (and triple buffering while were at it). Sometimes they release a client that doesnt cap your framerate at all, and when you have simple stuff on the screen, the gpu happily starts to draw 200+ frames, which tends to warm some of the vidcards up quite a bit, til they shut down
Its not that, its some sort of issue not limited to EVE, basicly when I load the game it freezes at the flash screen and goes BSOD, saying something about ati2dvag infinite loops and what not.
-
Firefly: Hehe... what does, "not boring" mean? I personally dislike RPGs and RPG-hybrids for the exact same reason that you dislike strategy games. Interesting isn't it? Perhaps it's because we don't give enough chance to the other medium to express just how good each really is?
Okay valid point :D , and I can actually say Im loving DF much more than I thought I would, in fact it is right up there with one of the best games I have ever played so I guess I dont dislike strategies as much as I thought! I just must have been buying the wrong ones :) I also bought majesty gold and fantasy wars since joining this community so I guess my gameplay tastes are changing , the games I have bought I can say in strategies games favour they seem to have really good replay value.
Also not boring basically means what to me that the game is interesting and has elements of uniqueness, is not shallow i.e has accesibility but depth at the same time.
I also like games where you think you know how to play then throughout the game the in game quality improves through more play and changes, content becomes more and more as well as functions in game like more controls/menus if applicable. (DF is an example of this)
Like someone says though its very subjective and thats the reason I used quite broad terms when trying to explain what makes a game good, I mean I think we would be hard pushed to find someone who would disagree that a game must be fun. I also notice that many people(like myself) are saying they want a game to be original and I think this is key as well. If a game falls into the same genre as other games then there must be improvement and the game needs to make its presance felt by employing new and innovative systems in conjunction with current well liked systems.
Its a hard thing to categorise as people are at differant levels with gaming, for example I am pretty extreme with many genres of game, I know them well but strats are my weak point. I do agree with what you say regarding people not having tried games long enough and this is why aside from what I have said I wouldnt write strats off and actually I am kinda eating my previous words here because since joining this community I am playing 4 strats at the momment and absolutely loving them. I think where strats are concerned they need to suck you in so you feel a sense of ownership with what you are building and give you a thirst for exploration of the games features, previously strats havent managed to do that for me but not any more! I am really enjoying myself here and I actually want to start again as I know I can do better and do things completely differant .
It appears as with RPGs my gaming is evolving to love strats as well and I guess the point I am trying to highlight is that its not just personal taste but also where a gamer is at with their gaming, for example waaay back I played many FPS games , I loved them but these days I wouldnt play them. I always have a rule, make sure you can play a game before passing final judgement however sometimes people dont have the time to do this and thus there could be many games they would have loved but never had that time to give them enough of a chance for this to happen (This has been touched upon in the thread and I agree)
-
I think it would really depend on how well the game responded to your actions. If you could do whatever the hell you wanted with no opposition and no real consequences, you'd soon lose interest. But I think that if, like DF, you could come back 20 years later after murdering a prominent man and have his family and friends try to assassinate you, it could become quite interesting/challenging. I need a challenge to motivate me to play, but it has to be well done. Too hard and I give up, too easy and I get bored. Which adds to another thing I don't like about Oblivion - in previous RPG's, if ever you got stuck you could always beef yourself up and try again - although not a fun option, it works. In Oblivion, the monsters automatically level up with you, no matter what they are or whether they've ever been in combat. That makes no sense whatsoever, and I think Bethesda could learn a thing or two from DF about realistic monster levelling.
...darn, and I was trying so hard not to turn this into a rant...
-
Fun.
If things get in the way of fun, the quality goes down.
If fun is new and fresh, quality goes up.
Really, this thread in it's simplest form.
-
What you said, with the added element of staying power: how fun something is multiplied by how long it can hold one's interest. Thus, Portal, whilst certainly fun, does not quite compare to a game like Fallout 3 which, while flawed, had about twelve times the total length of Portal (for me at least,) that puts it ahead in the total quality department.
-
Indeed. That must be added to the list of fun modifiers.
Also, needless modifiers are not fun.
-
EVERYTHING MUST BE EXPRESSED MATHEMATICALLY.
EVERYTHING.
And I say that modifiers are fun.
Particularly needless ones.
-
I suppose needless ones would be fun, depending on the needlessness of it. Pointless modifiers are another issue, as they directly interfere with the fun multipliers.
Then again, we need to remember the Entertainment functions and how they effect the whole system!
IDEA FOR ANOTHER NEEDLESS VARIABLE! This theoretical particle will validate our formulas and erase any problems with them! Of course, these particles are invisible to everything known to fundom and only interact with this one formula.
-
Seems no one mentioned this point yet.
The game must be sufficiently tested for bugs, and play-tested (so interface/gameplay annoyances are weeded out).
A game that crashes or bugs out every five minutes is bad no matter how good it might be otherwise.
-
So, as it stands so far:
Quality = Fun * Staying Power / Bugs and Crashes
Well, now that I think about it, frustration is an exponential function.
Quality = ( Fun * Staying Power ) ^ ( 1 / Bugs and Crashes)
-
Yeah, I'm surprised no one thought of bugs and performance as well. It's a pretty important point. Thanks for catching it.
-
I think it's more of..
Perceived Quality = (Fun + Staying Power)/Bugs and Crashes + Hype*Biased Modifier
Bugs and crashes just pull you out of the game. That's why fun games like ToEE and Vampire: The Masquerade didn't sell well.
Also, things like Fallout 3 and Half Life 2 are highly affected by hype. Hype either makes a person love a game or hate it. Note that I added "Perceived" there. The Biased Modifier can be anything from negative to positive ;)
EDIT: No, wait, you're right. Frustration is an exponential function. A game with 10 bugs is much more annoying than one with 1 bug. And I have neglected Price! Thus, the more detailed formula is..
Percieved Quality = (Fun*Appreciation of Fun + Staying Power*Appreciation of Staying Power)^(1/Bugs and Crashes)
+ Salary/Price + Hype*Biased Modifier*Stupidity
Also, Salary has a cap somewhere, but price doesn't :P
-
I doubt frustration is exponential.
It would probably resemble a bell curve. My reasoning is as follows:
1. A game with bugs -> lim(x) would resemble an exponential function.
2. Once a gamer reaches point x in number of bugs, each additional bug he encounters will have a less significant impact than before.
3. At some point, the total number of bugs and performance failures will overwhelm the gamer, leveling the graph.
4. After another threshold, the gamer wouldn't even notice new bugs and would start to justify his purchase / investment / time, making each additional bug actually valuable. In other words, the gamer after reaching this theoretical point will be in denial.
Note that the numbers I'm talking about here could be anywhere between 5 bugs to 10,000,000. It really depends on your patience and / or boredom. An example of point 4 is beta testers. They may not be in denial, but the bugs they encounter actual have a negative frustration point in general.
-
Now now, original formulas count most of that junk in as "Crap that gets in the way of fun." Of course, these new magic fun particles which we need for validation could cause some problems with that.
-
Lol, a bell curve doesn't make sense. It's more like an S-curve.. the player will still be frustrated when he comes across a bug, but only up to a certain point ;)
But IMHO, if the game reaches the point where it crashes every minute, it ceases to be fun. It's kinda like playing a computer game where the frame rate drops too low.
I propose that someone draw a graph of their frustration/fun levels by playing Dwarf Fortress on different frame rates.