Print

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

This only gave grief

3 (6.1%)

Grakelin is not stupid

6 (12.2%)

Are you happier now?

1 (2%)

------ Haiku, the encore -----

17 (34.7%)

Disagreeing, Fine

0 (0%)

Why you make a fuzz 'bout it?

3 (6.1%)

Lets just be happy

19 (38.8%)

Total Members Voted: 48

[Siquo]

That's normal, to assume that everyone who thinks different than you has a form of mental illness. People who don't believe that usually have some form of mental illness.

[Sean Mirrsen]

"All generalizations are false, including this one" - I don't remember whose sig it is.

The main reason for the consoles' success as a gaming market is that for any given game on any given console, the potential market is the entire population owning that particular console, whereas for the PC, only the ones with a specific level of hardware and software can play it, and even then there are frequently bugs and problems that are impossible to test due to vast amounts of differences between systems. And DRM on top of that, of course. And that's not taking the "minor" things like MacOS and Linux into account.

The chief attraction of the accursed consoles is accessibility. Disregarding the multitude of various attachments every console sports, it's really hard to make a difficult-to-control game when the number of control elements on an average gamepad doesn't exceed the number of fingers on an average hand. There are of course PC games with gamepad support, but that's just that, "support", few are actually made with a gamepad as the only input device in mind.

Take IL-2, for example. The remake for the consoles is going to be more arcade-style than the PC predecessor, and I can see why. There's no space on any gamepad imaginable to stick separate buttons or controllers for thrust, roll/yaw/pitch, flaps, trimmers, separate engine start, landing gear, ejection, separate machinegun/cannon/bomb/missile triggers and various radio commands at the same time (I omitted a few, I think). Even the HOTAS systems I saw don't have the required amount of control elements for that, and you can't make the game require one to play it, so you have to simplify.

[Cthulhu]

Also fuel mixture, prop pitch, and all that crazy nonsense.

And no, putting the unspoken air that permeates this thread (That is, they're dumbing down games for the big stupid retard Philistines that can't possibly understand the complexity of the games I/we play) into words is not trolling.  If it pisses you off, it's because you disagree.  Of course, half the time on the internet that is the definition of trolling.  I've seen people on this forum get accused of trolling for being the only person that disagrees on what a thread is saying.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Also manual gear release, fire extinguishers, tailhook raise/lower for carrier fighters, gunner controls, airbrake, view switch, view zoom, pilot view controls (looking around), and of course the autopilot button. Sometimes I wonder how the hell did they find enough keys on the keyboard for all this stuff. I guess the ctrl/shift keys help.

[Cthulhu]

I just turned off the super-simulator stuff, I don't want to have to go to flight school to learn to shoot Nazis.

[moghopper]

Also fuel mixture, prop pitch, and all that crazy nonsense.

And no, putting the unspoken air that permeates this thread (That is, they're dumbing down games for the big stupid retard Philistines that can't possibly understand the complexity of the games I/we play) into words is not trolling.  If it pisses you off, it's because you disagree.  Of course, half the time on the internet that is the definition of trolling.  I've seen people on this forum get accused of trolling for being the only person that disagrees on what a thread is saying.

You may be right, but I think the topic should be dropped. Otherwise this will just get ugly and someone will get muted. Can we please cut it out? For the sake of civility.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I just turned off the super-simulator stuff, I don't want to have to go to flight school to learn to shoot Nazis.

I find it rather fun sometimes, actually. Even if playing via keyboard. Oh, btw, forgot time compression controls. Those are a godsend on any long boring stretch when you let the autopilot fly. Sometimes I liked to turn off proper ballistics and transform all my weapons into laserguns. My favorite occupation in that mode was sniping engines off bombers from 4 kilometers with a Bf109's nose cannon.

Anyway.

I wonder what would happen if someone made an industry-quality game (say, GTA4-level) and just released it as donationware, like DF? Would the industry at least try to change then, seeing its success?

[Cthulhu]

Also magnetos, but I don't think those actually did anything in IL-2.  I did enjoy the realism of screwing with prop pitch without knowing what I was doing and hearing the gears tearing up.  The subsequent crash was also very interesting.

Also, you're assuming this game would succeed.  GTA 4's budget was 100 million dollars.  That's in USD, not sunshine and rainbows.  I suppose it's possible, but I can't see an industry-quality project surviving on donations alone.

[Draco18s]

I wonder what would happen if someone made an industry-quality game (say, GTA4-level) and just released it as donationware, like DF? Would the industry at least try to change then, seeing its success?

Unlikely.  I mean, look at Linux: free, great support,* very stable.  No market share.

*Note: great support and free support are generally mutually exclusive.  You can either have linux for free or you can have support for free.  But its still better than MS: you get neither for free (last time I had an issue that revolved around a MS product I needed to pay something like $235 just to talk to a tech; notably that same price tag is worth a year of support for Red Hat).

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

"All generalizations are false, including this one" - I don't remember whose sig it is.

The main reason for the consoles' success as a gaming market is that for any given game on any given console, the potential market is the entire population owning that particular console, whereas for the PC, only the ones with a specific level of hardware and software can play it, and even then there are frequently bugs and problems that are impossible to test due to vast amounts of differences between systems. And DRM on top of that, of course. And that's not taking the "minor" things like MacOS and Linux into account.

The chief attraction of the accursed consoles is accessibility. Disregarding the multitude of various attachments every console sports, it's really hard to make a difficult-to-control game when the number of control elements on an average gamepad doesn't exceed the number of fingers on an average hand. There are of course PC games with gamepad support, but that's just that, "support", few are actually made with a gamepad as the only input device in mind.

Take IL-2, for example. The remake for the consoles is going to be more arcade-style than the PC predecessor, and I can see why. There's no space on any gamepad imaginable to stick separate buttons or controllers for thrust, roll/yaw/pitch, flaps, trimmers, separate engine start, landing gear, ejection, separate machinegun/cannon/bomb/missile triggers and various radio commands at the same time (I omitted a few, I think). Even the HOTAS systems I saw don't have the required amount of control elements for that, and you can't make the game require one to play it, so you have to simplify.

All that is just a more complex way of saying what I did.

Cthulhu, you're still just repeating the same drivel.  Let me put it this way. 

"Video games can only be made one way!  The way that appeals to the largest possible market of consumers!  If someone likes complex games they're stupid and Elitist!  Elitist!  ELITISSSSSST!!!  Dirty stinking commie, nazi, homosexual, mutant, terrorist, hippie, liberal Elitistssssss!"

Do you see how stupid that sounds?

[Zangi]

I wonder what would happen if someone made an industry-quality game (say, GTA4-level) and just released it as donationware, like DF? Would the industry at least try to change then, seeing its success?

Unlikely.  I mean, look at Linux: free, great support,* very stable.  No market share.

*Note: great support and free support are generally mutually exclusive.  You can either have linux for free or you can have support for free.  But its still better than MS: you get neither for free (last time I had an issue that revolved around a MS product I needed to pay something like $235 just to talk to a tech; notably that same price tag is worth a year of support for Red Hat).

Well... if the graphics was made of pictures found on the internet or asci... it can be done.  It'll just take time.

Oh damn...  the M is calling me again...  what does she want now? 
Whats this?  A just called too.  Stop harassing me!  I don't want to go out with you!
No, I do not want to see big American T...  stop asking R.

Combat can be similar to roguelikes.
And hell, you can script events like chase scenes and ambushes too...

And voice?  Well, you can bribe your buddies down at the local pub with a few beers... or just use text.

And so we have GTA4: The Roguelike

[Cthulhu]

And you're not repeating the same drivel?

You said Episode 2 was consolized (To indie gamers what "terrorist" is to Republicans) because the combine gave their close combat troops markings to designate them as such.  I was dumbfounded when I saw you do that.  More importantly, you bring this stuff up constantly, on every video game thread that could possibly warrant it.

Moreover, I never said anything resembling what you just said, even on a deliberately exaggerated basis.  I play Dwarf Fortress too, remember?  I like complex games, and I'm bothered by excessive streamlining (Automaps, minimal aim assist on controllers, and the like are not excessive.  Quest-pointers in games like Oblivion, however, are).  What bothers me even more is when people declare a blood vendetta against all things modern, and nitpick the most insane things as examples of game makers trying to sell to a larger market (Which is hardly a bad thing, and it's where the elitist vibe comes from)

[Sean Mirrsen]

I see nothing wrong with games trying to appeal to a larger market. I see something wrong in the decline in the amount of games that don't go out of their way to appeal to a larger market. Essentially, the market is hit with a disease called "more of the same". Spore could be a great innovative game - and was transformed into "known elements" instead with the only original thing being the best of what's left. Supreme Commander could bring real-time grand strategy forward, and instead fell into the cybersports ditch. Nobody wants to do daring games anymore, except enthusiasts, because people value money too much. I mean, I can't seriously believe that a company like Electronic Arts actually uses its entire income - they're getting ridiculous profits from their games, will it really endanger their financial welfare in any way if they spent 10M$ on something experimental?

[JoshuaFH]

Firstly, Ioric, why are you being so antagonistic to Cthulhu? He's being civil, and I don't think it's unreasonable for you to reciprocate that civility.

Also, for the game industry to become something that produces things more experimental and doesn't need to risk fortunes to deviate from the norm is to become very consumer-based during production.

Now, what I mean by this is that things like demos need to become MUCH more common, and that they be made readily available to potential consumers as easily and cheaply as possible.

Now, what I fully mean is: when an idea is made, small prototypes and demos can be made, and these can be made available to the general public, and data can be collected by the bigwigs financing the production of these, and they can decide more reliably whether a certain idea is worthwhile to produce wholly. I think that if a system like that were set up, then more experimental and unique games could be produced more often.

Now, the way things are now, consumers are forced to either pirate, or if they want to vehemently stick to the law and buy games, then they have to rely on the few reviews that are online or the rare demos before shelling out ludicrous lumps of cash to buy a game, which I think is very harmful to the consumer side, and helps to rationalize pirating.

[Sowelu]

I think a lot of "experimental" games end up getting cancelled, which is a shame, but...well, at least they tried, right?

I wouldn't do all that much experimental stuff if I was a CEO/shareholder, just from a purely competitive point of view.  I mean...So, PC gamers, right?  They're always going to be on the lookout for something awesome, and when it comes along, they're not going to ignore it.  So you don't really have to worry about reaching out to the community.

And hey, when you have a giant budget, you can take any cool concept you decide to do and really NAIL it.  It's finding the concepts that's hard work.  So why not wait for other, smaller companies to explore that new ground, and then pounce as soon as they seem to hit something that works?  In the absence of something fresh and new, people aren't really going to stop spending money, so you're fine in the meantime.  You're fighting for market share, after all, not for an expanded market.  (Unless you come out with something like the Wii.  That expanded the market enormously...but that's not really the kind of experimental that PC gamers go for, is it?)