Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

I suppose that now you're going to claim that each one of those people had equal amounts of input on every part of the game design.

No, but whatever does that have to do with it? I was pointing out that these acknowledged great games used far more than one designer.

You want to boost your forum cred, not make logical arguments.

But how would I do that without making logical arguments?

It's not as though it's a new argument, since it's been used by people for more than a decade now.

Then perhaps you should consider if there is some truth in it.

Yet, if that list of features is still long enough, you are left with a good game.

And if it's even longer then you are left with an even better game.

I see, so you're actually just *****y that people want to make games that sell, rather than games that don't sell and lead to bankrupt companies.

What good does it do you or me if they make games that sell when it's all been done before and they don't manage to provide anything new except yet another graphics update? For all its remakes and updates, I can only play Tetris so much before getting awfully bored with it.

50 if you move quickly. Freedom Force, on the other hand, offers perhaps 20 hours of play, yet I would not say that Freedom Force is a worse game than Baldur's Gate 2.

Well of course, but you seem to be missing the point entirely. Let's say for a moment that you liked two games just as much. Would you then pick the one that take 4 hours to complete or the one that takes 10 hours? To me that choice is sort of obvious, but you seem to try disagree on principle with everything I say, so I'm sure you'll pick the 4 hour one.

Somebody who thinks that would be an ignorant person with little grasp of economics.

Or someone who compares the game market to others where you actually pay more for quality.

It's nice to see that you're presenting your opinion as fact.

You asked what I thought was wrong about Half-life 2's length, I told you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you going to claim that Oblivion is a worse game than either Morrowind or Daggerfall? Because that claim is patently absurd.

It's worse than both of them. And of course you would think it absurd, anything else and you'd be surprising me.

You should really like this game, since it uses controls and micromanagement much like RTS games in the early 90's.

No I shouldn't. It provides just about *no* improvements from AoE2, and it cuts out many gameplay features and units. In short, a 'lite' version of AoE2 with shiny graphics and water effects they had one guy working on for an entire year. It's laughable.

Is the best of the series, despite what Civilization 2 fanboys would tell you.

Yeah, I'm glad we're not trying to present our opinions as facts here. I'm also glad we're not trying to diminish the opinions of anyone who might not be agreeing with you.

Oh noes! A sequel isn't as good as the original. Whatever is the world coming to.

You're kidding? You actually agree with me that those games were inferior to the first games? Wow!

Is it better than 4? Yep. Is it different than 3, and therefore automatically completely horrible in the minds of the fanboy? Yep.

Better than 4? Nah, not really. Better than 3? No chance. It's really a remake of HoM&M3 with a few differences and additions to the combat system, of course with "omg l00k we kan have phat graphixx 2!!". At least H4 tried something different. The whole style of H5 is just annoying to me. Some games really don't need 3D graphics, that was one of them. Besides, it doesn't have the charm of the first three, as I see it.

The games that you claim to like playing tend to be commercial failures.

Some, but not all. It's hardly a big secret that most players just prefer straight-forward action games, though.

Why don't you go back and read where you claimed that M&B was an innovative game, or would you rather we ignored that?

There's nothing to ignore, as I never said it.

I simply pointed out that except for the combat system, you're example of such a game is inferior to a product released almost 15 years ago.

Yah, the 'adventure' part of the game isn't exactly advanced. But the game isn't done yet either, though.

The "crazy number of gameplay features", as you call it, are mostly useless unless the game is heavily modded to actually make them useful.

We might be thinking of different 'features'. I'm not talking about the weapons, but rather things such as design tester, stellar manipulation, detailed design editor, detailed spying assignments, ship experience, etc. In other words, smaller details. It's these that to me make SE stand over comparable games like MoO2, for instance, a game which feature far greater atmosphere and feeling, but contains not half of the possibilities that exist in SEIV.

Why are you claiming that games released in the last 15 years are oldies?

You're saying they aren't? I bought a Lucas Arts collection pack not long ago, and it was actually called "Lucas Arts Oldies Collection". Regardless of that, they are the games I grew up with, and as such they are what I consider oldies.

A point that is still completely unsupported by anything other than your opinion.

Well, as you already mentioned, I'm not the only one with that opinion. Mostly, though, I just like playing good games, and seeing that I still play tons of games from the 90's but finish off new games after only a few hours, I mostly just figure there's something wrong.

It's nice of you to miss the point yet again. It's also nice of you to admit that you haven't either of the games,

Actually, I didn't miss the point. The reason I *avoided* the point was because I haven't played the later game, and as such can't comment on it. Dune 2, obviously, is one of my favorites through all times. Biggest issue I have with Dune2 is just the little advanced interface that makes it tedious to play.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

@ the org post.

Your point is well posted, some of the images do not look all that good. The fact that you posted your thoughts shows that you have balls and I am sure there are more people than you realize who more likely than not will agree with your observations.

Its observations like yours that get people to make suggestions to improve things. Historically Aaron has listened to them with a very open ear. Unfortunetly now that he is an employee of SFI, the choice to listen openly might not always be available.

If you dislike the look of the game after you have bought it, be forward, but polite, and email Aaron suggestions for improvements. I know that that is what most of use are going to do with the things that we find we dislike.

But in all fairness, making a game like this on a shoe string budge does have its faults, and the fact that we are even getting a new game given these budget constraints is a God send. So please consider keeping that in mind when you email Aaron and if you're willing, at least offer him some thanks for what he has given us.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Well, since

You make popular arguments. The "Graphics ruins the gameplay" myth is very popular amongst a particular set of strategy game fanboys.

Perhaps you should realize that people were making exactly the same arguments about the games from the 90's that you consider to be so marvelous.

Wrong. This is where you don't understand a basic tenent of design. Less is more. Adding in extra features just for the sake of adding extra features adds nothing to the overall experience, and can actually detract from the experience, because those features either aren't worth using, or actually make the rest of the game harder or more tedious to play.

It does me the good of providing me with a new game to play, that likely has at least something of a new take on the genre. Even if it's completely derivative, which few games are, it still provides something to do once you've finished the other games in the genre.

Of course I'd pick the 4 hour one. I received the same amount of enjoyment out of the two titles per your statement, yet the 4 hour game took less of my time, and leaves me able to spend more time either playing other games, or doing something completely different.

Would you care to point out where in the book or movie industries where people pay more money for beter quality? Oh that's right, you can't, because nobody does.

You sound like a strategy gamer from the early 90's complaining about adventure games because you only get a dozen of hours out of them at most.

If you think that it's worse than both, then you must have specific points to outline why it is worse.

No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3. It's amazing how the fanboys act as though game developers pissed in their cornflakes when they release a sequel to a game that doesn't exactly meet their impossible to meet demands.

Would you care to point out some concrete facts to illustrate why Civilization 4 is worse than Civilization 2? The ability ot automate your workers alone is a point that means that no comparison can ever come out in the favour of Civ2. Note that complaints about the graphics engine are indicative of you not having a good enough computer to run the game, and as such are a problem with _you_, not a problem with the game.

Then what's the problem. You continue to act as though it's immoral to make a game that's designed to make money. You act as though the mere presence of HOMM5 means that HOMM3 no longer exists, which is asinine. You also act as though good graphics are a negative factor, which is only true if you don't have the economic resources to purchase a powerful enough computer to run the game. If that's the case, then I'm playing the world's smallest violin for you.

"Developers of games like Space Empires and Mount&Blade, low-budget, 1-2 man projects, manage to create far more entertaining and featureful games than uncountable high-budget games."

I simply pointed out that this statement is laughably incorrect. Mount & Blade has fewer features than Pirates!.

Are they charging money for the game? Then it's perfectly acceptable to consider the current state as a completed game.

The problem with all those possibilities is that they make a game that's completely unplayable past about turn 40. It's ludicrous to expect people to spend multiple hours per turn on a game that's going to last for 200 more turns.

So, basically, what your actual argument is really "The games of today don't match up with my memory of the games that I first played in my youth." That's called seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses.

You really don't want to be associated with the people that hold that opinion. They tend to inhabit places like the RPGCodex.

Yes, the problem is that you are expecting the modern equivalents of the adventure game to be something other than what they are.

But, I thought that older games had better gameplay. Yet here you are now claiming that Dune 2 has interface problems. It seems that you can't even decide what side of the issue you actually stand on.

Oh! I've got a better one for you. You must think that the combat control system for swordfights in Defender of the Crown is amazing, since it's a really old game!

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

MODERATOR MOD

You know, its just that kind of negativity that prompts people to request that threads be locked. So lets please keep it civil and try and avoid trash talking or belittling sarcasim.

Irany is ok, but out right rudness just never gets us any where.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3.

The sentence may not have been worded optimally, but he said that the water effects had one guy working on them for an entire year, not the whole game itself.

Would you care to point out some concrete facts to illustrate why Civilization 4 is worse than Civilization 2? The ability ot automate your workers alone is a point that means that no comparison can ever come out in the favour of Civ2.

This is entirely, absolutely, your opinion. Please stop deriding others for posting their opinions "as facts" when you do exactly the same, repeatedly. It does not strengthen your arguments.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

never really noticed the non-optimal wording, just what was meant by the sentence, one guy worked on water affects for a year. not surprising really, given modeling water in 3d is not simple or straight forward.

Was going say more, but I see no point, other than what interested me in this game had little to do with graphics.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

Here's an idea; how about we just drop the topic?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Neither of you are going to convince the other of anything, and the arguement has long since surpassed the point of reiterating what you've already said multiple times.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

And so what? What possible gameplay improvements would you have received by instead spending those wages on another designer. Did they not have enough designers to make sure that they got everything they wanted into their game? There's a small, extremely vocal group of gamers who are convinced that somehow, there would be better games if only people didn't spend money on graphics. This assertion is laughable, since game design is an artistic process. If you don't have a good designer, then no amount of money will create a good game.

Oh? It's nothing more than my opinion that Civ 3 and 4 are better because they allow you to automate away tedious micromanagement. If that's the case, then I can simply tell you that it's nothing more than your opinion that graphics eats away at gameplay like some sort of insidious cancer.

I thought you were smart enough to not attempt to shut down arguments by simply claiming "That's just your opinion", whenever somebody presents arguments. Note that neither you, nor anyone else has presented a _single_ reason why Civ 4 is the worst of the series, you have merely asserted that it is. And yet, when I present an actual argument, you completely ignore it.

Here's some more actual arguments so that you can continue to concede defeat by ignoring them. Civ 1 was a decent game, but it was made horribly tedious by the constant need to micromanage your pioneers. I assume that Civ 2 was the same, unless it actually had some way to not force you to micromanage them. Civ 3 and 4 fixed this major issue by freeing you from having to deal with the extraordinarily tedious worker shuffle. Now, there's absolutely no possible way to claim that the ability to turn on automated workers makes the game worse, since if you actually are one of those masochists who enjoy rote micromanagement you can simply not turn it on.

I'm sure that somebody else will come back with complaints that Civ 4 doesn't allow you to use infinite city spam, or some other tactic that was present in Civ2, making it the worst game in the series yet. To that I say: If you really want that to be the best way to win the game, then go mod it. I'm sure there's at least a couple of hundred people worldwide who would like to play your mod.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

If you don't like the thread, then I have a simpler solution for you. You can stop reading it. Or you can do anything else besides trying to protect the losing side by suggesting that people leave the topic alone.

Re: SE5 screenshots ugly?
 

I think what some of the posters are trying to say that they don't require sophisticated graphics to enjoy a game as long as the gameplay is fun/good. If the gameplay is good, then nice graphics can only make it better. Although sometimes it might be frustrating if a game with both strong gameplay/graphics is made slightly less playable because the graphics are a little too intensive, making the game run slower etc. In most cases these days, you can get by reducing some of those in-game settings.

I'm not sure how we got off-track debating the merits of worker automation in the Civ series, but in general I think most would agree that Civ3/Civ4 would be more tolerable than the earlier entries. Of course, it is also possible that a feature that was lost in one of the earlier games sours their experience in face of other new options.

Obviously the graphics in SE:V in comparison to other games are somewhat lacking, but there's likely a couple of reasons. First, the money issue - better graphics generally means more time, which equals more money. Second, in order to keep large fleet battles workable, some "caps" were kept in mind when making the 3d models so that the game wouldn't come to a near standstill for on most people's computers.

Graeme, you don't need to be so edgy. I think merely Renegade13 was suggesting that no one was changing their position, so the thread was becoming a continuous re-hash of the earlier postings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif