[Raapys]

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

I see. And what kind of fanboy were you again? Since everyone else is one, I mean.

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.

I wasn't around back then, so I suppose I should just take your word for that...or not.

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.

Less is more is just a silly catchphrase. You're also automatically assuming that games made have an 'optimal number of features' already. For you that may very well be, for me that's as far from the truth as can be. Perhaps I'm just more demanding than you. The rest of your argument also assumes that it's a badly implemented feature so as to fit your opinion about the so called 'less is more'.

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.

True, it does. To me, though, those games stop being much fun because of the incredible lack of innovation, new features and new approaches to the genre. I.e. something that is special for that game. In other words, it's *not* something I wanna play. Again, taste and opinions.

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.

I don't see playing games as a chore. If I have just as much fun when I play that 10 hour game as when I play the 4 hour one( assuming that I'm actually enjoying the games), then obviously I'd like to have fun for as long as possible and would go with the 10 hour game.
I've read it's popular these days to discover how to make sex last as long as possible, too.

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.

I think the word you're looking for is 'entertainment industry', as there's plenty of non-entertainment books, for instance, which you have to pay more for, even if the quality in those, too, is subjective.

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

Why, of course I do. I'm not gonna list them, however, as it would 1) Take more time than I'm willing to spend in this thread, and 2) Wouldn't make a difference at any rate, except giving us yet another topic to discuss and not agree on.

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

What's *really* laughable is how you managed to somehow land at that conclusion because I left out a comma in my sentence.

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.

Yah, guess it was too hard for the developers to stop concentrating on the graphics long enough to figure out that the "fanboys", for some crazy reason, actually wanted gameplay improvements.

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.

That statement is also called an 'opinion', although "cleverly" disguised as both a "fact" and as an insult to anyone who might not share your opinion. And I wasn't the one that talked about Civ2.

Then what's the problem. You continue to act as though it's immoral to make a game that's designed to make money.

Actually, I couldn't care less about that. What I do care about, is that I'm not getting the games that I want; or rather, I'm not getting the games *as I want them*. There's alot of improvements I would have liked to see regarding Heroes 3 or even 4. Yet, they aren't coming. Sucks to be me.

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.

My computer runs all games satisfactory, that's not the problem. And don't get me wrong, I don't complain about good graphics in other ways than that I believe it takes alot of attention away from the actual gameplay, which I consider a bad thing.

Anyway, 'state of the art' graphics doesn't make the gameplay good, and it doesn't make the atmosphere/feeling of the game good. Graphics plays a major factor, but not in the sense of 'technical advancement' of the graphics, but rather how it's used, the color palette, etc.

Games like Baldur's Gate 2, for instance, manage to combine all the factors: excellent gameplay( for those that like that type), pretty 2D graphics, superb soundtrack and sound effects, etc. While Neverwinter Night's graphics engine is far more advanced than BG2's, it doesn't, in my opinion, get anywhere near as practical and suitable to that game type, nor does it look half as nice as the 2D engine. It's mostly just sluggish, slow, unresponsive and annoying.

That's exactly how I judge Heroes 1-4's graphics engines vs Heroes 5's, too. They didn't make it 3D because the game needed or would be better with it, they did it because it's "in".

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

Pirates has tons more features than alot of new games, and old ones for that matter. Mount & Blade was actually more directed on the "entertaining" part of sentence you quoted me on, though, while SEV is unequalled, as far as I know, when it comes to features in that type of game.

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

That's a childish conclusion. If they say it isn't done, then it isn't. It's as simple as that. Especially when it still says "beta", with big letters. They're letting us 'pre-order' the game, while also giving us the opportunity to beta test it.

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.

Not true for my games, at least. What's more, though, SEIV not only offers these features as *options*, i.e. you don't have to use them, but even offers the ability to have the computer take control of any part of the game you don't want to manage. It's an excellent approach, as I see it.

And if it was up to me the game would have even more features, where you want it simpler, judging by your statements. Which shows our completely different takings on games in general, I suppose.

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 a common enough assumption, but I think it's incorrect. I mean, yeah, my memory of the games probably has its influence on the whole thing; but I still play old games, many times a week, and while some of the magic is gone I still think they're great fun to play.

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

Never been there much. On the 'people' note, though, you seem to be a great fan of lumping them into stereotypes and categories.

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

I'm inclined to agree, but the game market has changed alot too, over the last years. It's like developers are now trying to make games that appeal to everyone at the same time, where before developers targeted a more specific audience with their games, which meant deciding which features to include, and making your fans happy, alot easier.

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.

I don't have a problem with admitting faults of the games, nor does admitting such in any way somehow put me 'on the other side of the issue'. If anything, the games I like the most are usually the ones I critize the hardest, especially when the sequels doesn't turn out how I wanted them.

You must think that the combat control system for swordfights in Defender of the Crown is amazing, since it's a really old game!

Ah, true, controls have come a long way indeed. Don't we all just love the wasd + mouse style of the 90's?

What possible gameplay improvements would you have received by instead spending those wages on another designer.

Who said it would go to another designer? What about simply not using that money at all, which would mean less time-pressure as there would be less money to regain? Which again would mean there could be additional time for the programmers to A) Implement features they didn't have time for otherwise, or B) Get rid of some of that laughable amount of bugs that games are released with today, since they're all rushed out. Or they could, for example, hire another programmer to do modding tools for the game. There's always something to do, and manpower and time is always at least part of the problem. Money can buy both.

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.

True, but isn't that the whole point of discussing? I mean, how many times have you seen one side somehow 'convert' the other in a discussion? We're just doing it to waste time. Although, since the thread is actually called 'SE5 screenshots ugly??', I suppose we might be at the wrong location.