Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Puck]

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.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

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)

[Muz]

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

[Soulwynd]

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>

[Spud]

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

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...

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.

[Nilocy]

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.

[Soulwynd]

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.

[Spud]

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 .

Like I said, COH has a little RPS, but generally certian units work better in certian situations, not against certian other units.

[Soulwynd]

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.

[Tormy]

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]

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.

[firefly28]

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 , 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)

[deadlycairn]

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...

[Duke 2.0]

 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.

[Reasonableman]

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.