Will there be a Dominions 4

[Executor]

I tend to agree with WL, new games are mostly crap, and that's even a compliment for them.

[krpeters]

I'd like to add my two cents on the subject of game quality:

I think the reason games in the past had more depth was because they had to. If you have crappy graphics, you have to make up for it with game play or else there's little left to hold a player's attention. As graphics have improved, the visuals are enough to get people's attention, so they don't need gameplay quality anymore... so it's not there.

[Zeldor]

There were many games with depth, sure. But there were many crappy ones too. Some games were quite revolutionary, but you can't say they were better than newer versions. Civ1 was the worst of Civs. Same for most of games that got new version [well, Discples and HoMM got totally ruined].

We are certainly seeing much less trust from gamers to gaming industry. And gaming industry working hard to lose even more of it - suing pirates, adding DRM instead of making games people would really want to buy. Or dumbing down classic games. Really, why can't they just add new graphics to HoMM3 WoG? Sure, it won't appeal to many players, but instead of making uber stupid Homm5 and 6, they should make a proper HoMM and some other crap for those that can't play it.

[thejeff]

Oddly I remember hearing the same things at least a decade ago.

Including all the "it's just pretty pictures, where's the gameplay" rants.

A lot of it is Sturgeon's Law. It's also a matter of taste. 4X/TBS games are out of favor right now. Maybe that's linked to the mass market, maybe it isn't.

Some of it's economic. It's much better to sell lots of games that people won't play for very long than one that they'll play for years. (Unless you're getting online subscription fees.) Sure, you can sell add-ons and sequels, but you need a real big hit to make that work.

[JonBrave]

Originally Posted by Zeldor

There were many games with depth, sure. But there were many crappy ones too. Some games were quite revolutionary, but you can't say they were better than newer versions. Civ1 was the worst of Civs.

I so don't get this. Civ I was the first computer game ever grabbed me, I thought it was great. For what it was, I thought it was the best. Civ II was more polished etc., Civ IV is the best now, but Civ I was the best for me, for what it did.

[Executor]

Well of course, it's all about the economics.
Better to make small, crappy games, that are more easily made and flip a few coins, than invest time (where time equals money ) to make a proper all rounded up game which probably won't fetch a profit as big as some crappy games would have in the time invested. So every new game (mostly) offers a crappy old lousy play style and super awesome graphics, which is really what gets peoples attention (it glitters...)

Much like the frakking movie industry which is all about the special effects and getting a famous actor, not so much about the storyline...etc
sad, sad times...

[Zeldor]

Unfortunately subscription fees may be the only thing that can save good games - costs now are just extremely big. You can get over $100M for a game, so it's a budget like movies. And games like Medal of Honor have 4h campaign for $60. Well, and MP that get obsolete in few months. I would probably pay a monthly fee for a nice shooter [W:ET] that had good servers, constant new maps etc. I would pay a monthly fee for Dominions online too.

[sansanjuan]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

Ahmmm. let's see, MOM, CIV, LoM, starcon, dune, warcraft, HoMM, UFO, MOO, DotC, Disciples, Warlords, Kohan, AoW just to name a few. Show me same or even close level of innovation, creativity & content in a main stream game today.

I gave modern games a chance. Some are passable (HoMM V, Disciples III, Warhammer, Total War). Most IMHO are mediocre at best and downright crappy at worst. Oh and GFX has improved a lot no doubt - GFX is amazing but I'd rather watch a good movie than play a shallow click-festi game.

Perhaps the times have changed and I remain trapped in anachronistic expectations. Fact is, I only play old games: dominions, disciples, AoW & chess although I have a number of new games installed on my hard drive. Typically I'd start new game X, say wow to amazing gfx, play a bit, then get bored and annoyed by bugs, inconsistencies and shallow mechanism and end up never playing it again.

Funny how I own 9 of those listed. That makes me wonder about the others..
-ssj

[WraithLord]

You should get them, they're great

Also, to prolong the list here are some more names: Archon, AdoM (+ angband, nethack etc), Dungeon keeper, Total annihilation, starcraft.

Also, dom I PPP with the so lovely feature of maps actually changing to reflect your spreading dominion - It's really nice to see your cold dominion creeping over ever larger stretches of the map

And Lords of Magic is worth another mention as it has a nice "groove" to it.

krpeters & Executor, I think your explanation makes sense. It seems I share your point of view.

thejeff, if it's 90% crap then where are the 10% quality games?- Please, please point me to a good FTBS made lately. Or let's raise the bar, to a good FTBS made by a big company lately.

Zeldor, there's an extra value to the playing an innovative game for the first time. It doesn't have to be perfect or polished but it would leave a lasting impression - like reading a great book with a twisting plot. It gets worst when the sequel is dumbed down or more buggy than the predecessor.

[TheConway]

Basically WL, I'm saying that the FTBS genre doesn't really exist anymore. I honestly can't think of one that has come out in the last couple years.