[Graeme Dice]

Raapys said:One of the greatest games of all time(subjectively, as with everything else), Fallout, used a total of 14 designers, numbers from Mobygames. Baldur's Gate 2 used 8 total.

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.

If I wanted to feel accepted, wouldn't I be agreeing with you?

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

Someone had to come up with those opinions too. Couldn't I be one of them? Or would that be too inconvenient for your arguements?

Unless you happened to be on usenet around 1994, I highly doubt that you were the first one to come up with this now standard argument. It's not as though it's a new argument, since it's been used by people for more than a decade now.

And putting alot of your resources and time into graphics means you will have a very short list of features indeed.

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

Nothing, if you want to make just another clone to milk some cash out of the market.

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.

Baldur's Gate 2 offers, what, 100-200 hours of play to finish it, depending on play style?

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.

Now, one would think the price difference between these games would be huge, since they offer such widely different amounts of content.

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

Of course not. It's about adding features for the sake of gameplay and depth, a missing concept in today's games.

Why don't you actually provide a list of games, rather than simply repeating this assertion.

It's too short. Heck, even Deus Ex, a game that has *far* more gameplay elements and features than Half-Life 2, was over twice as long as it, and even more enjoyable to play.

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

TES Oblivion,

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

Age of Empires 3,

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

Civ4,

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

Deus Ex 2, Might & Magic 9,

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

[quote]
Heroes of M&M 5,

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

the unlimited amount of Doom clones, not to mention the C&C clones, etc.

You've yet to provide a rational argument for why these are somehow bad. Note that even were these games never made, they would have no effect on the existence of games that you claim to like playing. The games that you claim to like playing tend to be commercial failures.

The strategic layer of Mount and Blade is little more than a simplified version of Pirates!, a game first released in 1993

"Note that there is absolutely no requirement for innovation for a game to be considered a good game."

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? 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.

As for SEIV, to me it's already a great game: far greater than uncountable high-budget ones. The modding part of the game is a feature that definitely helps keep it fresh, but the best part of the game is the crazy number of gameplay features it offers, compared to any other game in the genre.

The "crazy number of gameplay features", as you call it, are mostly useless unless the game is heavily modded to actually make them useful. As an example, every single direct fire, non-special damage type, weapon technology other than anti-proton beams and phased polaron beams could be completely removed from the game without changing the balance one bit. The others are strictly inferior, so there is no point in their existence.

Never tried it. I regularly play oldies, though. For instance the adventure games from Lucas Arts, Pizza Tycoon, X-com, Daggerfall, Imperialism, Capitalism, Reunion, System Shock, and many more.

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

Nevermind my point that games from the 90's blow the water out of today's.

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

If I was gonna tell you Dune 2 was a better game, graphics wouldn't even enter in to the post. That's how much I care about them.

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, because the gameplay advancements between Dune 2 and Rise of Legends are so blatantly obvious that only a fanboy would deny their existence.

I'm still waiting to hear how many games you play in a year.