SE5 screenshots ugly?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Hugh Manatee said:

Where might I do that?

Whoop, my mistake. Bethesda is offering Arena for a free download, not Daggerfall.

[Atrocities]

Ok, you all want to talk about fancy graphics vs game play, well lets look at some games that had those fancy graphics and where they are now compared to SEIV.

Armada I and II - um bargin bins at remote computer stores and garage sales around the world.

Odd I know there are more games out there that focused on graphics over game play, but I just cannot remember them to point them out. However I can point out that despite being six years old, SEIV albeit an obscure little game, is still KING OF THE HILL when it comes to true 4x games and game play.

In fact it is so much the king of the hill that NO Game developer to date has even tried to topple it. Oh sure you can mention Moo3, but we all know how that ended don't we?

Sure eye candy is very very important to any game, but as most of us know, its the game play that tells the life span of any game. SEIV, with its ugly graphics and dated looking UI, is still KOTH and even though SE V's graphics look ugly to some, the game play will tell the tale as to whether or not the game is going to be a success.

So stop the *****'en, and enjoy the fact that we have a new 4x game on the horizon. Either do that or go make your own game and see how easy the whole process is. I am sure non of us here will hold it against if you end up using dated graphics.

[Graeme Dice]

Imperator Fyron said:
10 hours, $10 sounds right. To me, $50 for a game that only gives 10 hours of entertainment is ludicrous.

Well, that's your own decision to be dissappointed then.

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

I strongly disagree.

That's good for you then, I guess. I'm not sure why innovation is necessary for computer games when it's not necessary for any other form of entertainment.

[Graeme Dice]

Imperator Fyron said:
When you mouseover a SY, the galaxy map at the top indicates the system it is in. Saying it gives absolutely nothing is, well, absolutely wrong.

Telling you what system it's in is almost as useless as telling you nothing, unless you only happen to have a single planet colonized in each system.

[Atrocities]

That's good for you then, I guess. I'm not sure why innovation is necessary for computer games when it's not necessary for any other form of entertainment.

And look at the state of "other forms" of entertainment.

Inovation, as stated, is IMHO, the hallmark of great games. Disputing this fact just proves the old point about one opening ones mouth and removing all doubt as to ones intelligence. *shakes head in disbelief of statement*

Of course now if you were being facecious, than please continue.

[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.

[Graeme Dice]

Atrocities said:
In fact it is so much the king of the hill that NO Game developer to date has even tried to topple it.

To be fair, no eveloper has tried to topple it because the potential market is so small that you can only make money in it as an independent.

[Atrocities]

I cannot argue you point about the market being small, but then again, its the small markets, or the nitch (sp) markets that make the games that last six years or more.

[Saber Cherry]

@The first post:

I hated the ground combat in GC2, and thought it was the most glaring flaw in the game. It felt like sitting at a slot machine.

[Renegade 13]

Now now, people seem to be getting a little testy and defensive with regards to their opinions. Please keep it cool!

(Of course, not applicable to all posts, just some)