[Graeme Dice]

Raapys said:
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.

Well, since

But how would I do that without making logical arguments?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!".

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.

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.

"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!.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, as you already mentioned, I'm not the only one with that opinion.

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

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.

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

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.

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!