SE5 screenshots ugly?

[Raapys]

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.

[Atrocities]

@ 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.

[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!

[Atrocities]

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.

[Fyron]

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.

[ToddT]

Imperator Fyron said:
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.

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.

[Graeme Dice]

Imperator Fyron said:
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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fyron]

Graeme Dice said:
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.

Where did I say this? How does the following lead to graphics being an insidious cancer?

"Some [companies] can devote enough [programming man-hours] to both parts, some (eg: most console developers) devote too much to graphics and not enough to gameplay, and some probably devote too much to gameplay and not enough to graphics."

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.

Actually, you are the one that was doing that (in a couple of posts on different arguments), and I was merely pointing out that it can go both ways. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the worker automation is a good feature to have (though I do think the worker AI tends to make some poor choices sometimes), but it is still opinion either way... The issue arises when one presents numerous opinions in his arguments, then decries the same exact method taken by others.

...reason why Civ 4 is the worst of the series, you have merely asserted that it is.

Maybe this is because I have said absolutely nothing of the sort? Where have I asserted such a claim? Why would I try to support a claim I do not believe to be true, and have never even hinted at?

Of course, even if you love all of the civ games, you would still technically have to consider one of them the worst of the series. Not worst because you think it is bad, but simply by virtue of not liking it quite as much as the others.

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.

Really? Most of my turns around 40 are still in the 5-10 minute range. Even if I am at war, it rarely takes upwards of 20.

[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.

[Fyron]

There's always something to do, and manpower and time is always at least part of the problem. Money can buy both.

Up to a point, then it starts to harm productivity... Look for info on the mythical man-month.