Quake 1 is probably the most atmospheric game I've played, it really did feel like you were in some kind of hellish place with terrible monsters lurking around each corner, it also featured some rather nifty booby traps for the unaware player and some nice secrets 😉 quake 2 completely changed it all and IMHO, is no where near as engrossing. Duke Nukem 3D comes close to matching the quality of the atmosphere given in Quake 1, but only marginally falls short. the pace in that game is too fast for my liking.

Dungeon Keeper, probably the single most greatest RTS game ever created, Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge comes close to the quality and atmosphere of DK1. CnC Generals and any other game like it, dumbed the game down by some serious amounts, making it a drab and boring thing to play... like in CnC 3, every side has the same type of units with only minor differences in them, strategy largely consists of being the first to get money and knowing how to spend it... Starcraft however has rather massive differences in each side yet retains a excellent degree of balance and is a helluva lot more enjoyable.

Black & White 2 is a boring game, the computer very rarely attacks you and when it does you can throw a fireball and the enemies army instantly dies... B&W 1 was absolutely awesome compared to the 2nd one, the enemy could actually pose a threat and you had decent miracles that helped in a more passive way. You had to use the miracles to actually help your people, and not for attacking the enemy, like in B&W 2 the only way you can help your people is water and heal but in B&W 1 you had Wood, Food, Water, Heal miracles oh and you had to actually construct and place your structures, where as in B&W 2 you just chose from a menu and clicked where you wanted it.

Most APOGEE/3DREALMS DOS games are awseome too.

Yes, I am aware of the threads topic/subject... but every good game I mentioned here has some of the best gameplay mechanics ever, anything newer that is based on these games tends to be dummed down to all hell or buggy as hell.

Fallout 3, costs 99$ (standard) or 119$ (Special Edition) brand new, I don't know why people would pay that much for a game... all your doing is paying for the bug testing and fixing (that should have been done before the game was launched) so that all us 'smart' people can eventually pay less for a much better quality version of the game 😀

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_bugs (bugs in the game)

Most companies these days just get something made, release, use profits to perform minor bug fixing, keep the majority of profit. (EA does well in this department)

If I'm going to rehash the posts here I think I agree with those who say that what is missing is depth and diversity of gameplay.

Yes there is Crysis and Far Cry and all kinds of wonderful first-person shooters that are visually heads and shoulders above DOOM and Quake. The visuals have advanced by leaps and bounds, but the basic parameters of gameplay have not. Crysis and Far Cry aren't any more immersive for me than Quake, really. The genre isn't going to get much better than it is until things go the full VR route and you actually feel like you're running around with guns picking things off. Until then it's just a question of who has the prettiest, smoothest graphics wrapped around the same basic FPS premise.

Where is the modern-day equivalent of something like Infiltrator, which mixed helo flying with something like an FPS (more like third-person shooter, really).

Or a modern multiplayer X-COM, which could include include a flight sim, real-time strategy/economic elements, and a first person shooter? Something like that is just not on the radar at all.

Remaking old games isn't a bad idea, but a lot of old games could be remade is truly stellar ways with today's technology. Unfortunately, I think most large gaming enterprises tend to aim at a Hollywood blockbuster multi-platform release and that precludes certain types of gameplay. And the smaller developers just don't have as many resources as would be required to make a "good" remake feasible.

In the end, though, I think it's because no one has presented some really compelling, unique PC games in quite some time. It's a big risk, and why take it when you can crank out the less risky Call of Duty 27 instead?

Honestly, I don't really agree with your stance. It's akin to saying that automobiles haven't advanced since they are obviously still 4 wheels, a chassis with an engine, and a pretty body. Evolution is what has happened.

Shooters were born from technological evolution. Tech is still evolving and so are they. Today we have much, much more sophisticated simulation occurring in all games. Physics for the environment, weapons, vehicles, character movement, etc. Crysis has an extensive, complex physical simulation of many aspects of its world, stuff that was simply impossible in 1996. AI has advanced tremendously since Quake. And, to use Crysis again, you see huge open, interactive environments that a Pentium 90 (or even Athlon XP) would've imploded on. And of course the visuals are dramatically improved, which as definitely brought more mass market interest in the games and adds a lot to player immersion.

Asking for some sort of generic "new genre revolution" isn't realistic. Folks love to cry out for such things though, in every market. Granted, if some sort of new input device or display method comes about and ends up in the market in volume, I'm sure new "genres" will appear to leverage it.

I think another problem which is made plainly obvious by complaints of "no progress" is that some people are completely missing the nuances of what has improved. I relate this to a desire for "the next big thing" because at one point a person played his first FPS/RPG/racer/puzzle/platformer/etc and it was that "first time" kind of experience. Said person always looks for the next exciting thrill "first time" experience because playing small improvements doesn't have the same excitement attached. Part of life, methinks. Everything gets judged against nostalgia unless it's completely unique. And whether something is deemed as "successful" or "good" depends heavily on what the person is looking for.

The problem with the automobile comparison is that it isn't complete. To make it comperable, then all new cars would have to have the same (or almost the same,) overall design. So, yes, better engines, tires, transmissions, injectors, etc. are all coming out, but every car being produced are just generic in appearance. Say, only red station wagons. If you look real hard you might find a violet or pink one though. So, every newer car on the road is a red-ish station wagon. That's what modern games are like. Excellent engine, great tires, awesome transmision, but all stuck to a body that is not really that inspired.

That's what everyone is complaining about with modern games. Sure, you have better physics, graphics, realism, etc. however, all this great new stuff is only coming out in general stories. There are basically 3 types of games coming out for the most part; FPS, RTS, and Sports. They kick up the graphics and such, re-wash a generic plot line, and release it as a brand new game. Oh, they twidle with the interface, get some good artists to draw the prety animations and such, and think they are putting out something totally new.

On the other hand, and I hate to use this term, back in the day, programmers were almost always looking for a gimmick. Something that made their game totally unique. Ultima IV's virtue system comes to mind. Thief's concentration on stealth and sneaking (actually penalizing those who just run around killing things.) Dungeon Keeper's reversal of role (you play the evil boss that heroes are trying to destroy.)

What we are looking for are innovative hooks. More story, less action (ok, more story with same amount of action maybe.) Plot and character designs that show serious effort, and not the cookie-cutter stuff I see in most games today. Cut-scenes and narration that takes time and effort to create, and advances the story, not just a slap on bridge to half-way justify something that doesn't really make sense. Sure, build a story jump that doesn't make sense, but then put some real effort into justifying it so that people say "ooh, that's cool," instead of "how did we end up here?"

Then, take all that effort and use the advanced physics, graphics, etc. to pull the player into the game. Play test it to make sure that the parts that are supposed to be difficult really are difficult, and the parts that are supposed to be easy aren't too easy. And, since I'm asking for everything here, package it with -good- documentation, an actually usefull quick-reference card, and a nice collectable trinket, cloth map, whatever.

Swaaye : Exactly.

Kan : Half Life 2 is not what I would refer to as a refined shooter, certainly not now anyway - it's 4 years old from release. However it is a watershed for certain reasons (physics gameplay, photo realism, DX9). It was also severely limited with map walls that couldn't be traversed and extremely limited AI, but that doesn't mean that 'getting to the next level' wasn't rewarding. It's a normal trope of FPS gaming.

Now, if you're saying that these means ALL FPS games are not evolved because they don't use the tactical approach to combat (destroy element/location x and it will be destroyed in later mission y) or have developed AI (who remember what you've done to/for them and react realistically) then you'd be wrong. STALKER and Fallout 3 are two such FPS games that don't just reward the play with the next level. Yes, they are also classed as RPGs but then so what, what you're asking for in an FPS are RPG elements of gameplay.

Once again : I digress.

swaaye, I find FPSes repetitive and boring, end of story. The best FPSes I had ever played were R6: Rogue Spear and Ghost Recon. And what made them special was not the stock single-player missions (again, boring and reptetitive) but coordinating the action of multiple live players on user-designed maps. That stuff is fun. And that fun can be replicated across virtually any FPS on the market today. Human nature being what it is, it only stays fun if the challenge stays fresh and that's not the case for me.

Unfortunately, after playing a lot of FPSes over the past 10 years, I am pretty much tapped out on the genre. Yes, the physics and damage modeling of modern games is cool, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, there is a lot more to life than just damaging stuff. Like, say, utilising stuff. The environment just about every FPS is still pretty static. Can't dig foxholes or hull-down positions for vehicles. Water does not significantly affect affect traction. Terrain elevation doesn't affect movement speed or increase/decrease effective sensor range.

Then there's the AI angle. Game AI is never going to be as grand as playing against a fellow human, and I just don't find it challenging or fun. Instead of spending 50-70 bucks on a game, you could blow that money on airsoft or paintball and have a fully dynamic environment with complete physics modelling, vastly better AI, no nanosuit, and only your own intelligence to save your butt.

Of course you will probably end up spending way more than 70 bucks on ammo, but that's life.

I'm not denigrating the guys who enjoy FPSes but honestly, having played them for so long they are just not appealing to me anymore.

dh4rm4 wrote:

Kan : Half Life 2 is not what I would refer to as a refined shooter, certainly not now anyway - it's 4 years old from release.

It was the first time it came around --certainly much better than Doom 3. But fine, replace it with Far Cry and it's still basically the same.

dh4rm4 wrote:

but that doesn't mean that 'getting to the next level' wasn't rewarding.

It is rewarding, but when every other action game out there gives you the same kind of reward, then I need to load DOSBOX and play Their Finest Hour for different kind of reward.

dh4rm4 wrote:

It's a normal trope of FPS gaming.

It was also the normal trope of Xenon 2: Megablast. Now, if game companies in the old times followed the safe route of "refine this proven formula over and over again" like they do now, we would have been limited to clones of Xenon 2: Megablast instead of Their Finest Hour, Covert Action, and Populous. Fortunately, that was not the case in the old days. See the difference now?

dh4rm4 wrote:

STALKER and Fallout 3 are two such FPS games that don't just reward the play with the next level.

Did you miss the part where I praised S.T.A.L.K.E.R as exception?

dh4rm4 wrote:

Yes, they are also classed as RPGs but then so what, what you're asking for in an FPS are RPG elements of gameplay.

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

You're still missing the point. And frankly, this is also the same problem with game publishers these day; they all assume what the gamers want is "FPS with THIS", "FPS with THAT", etc, etc.

First, why do they all have to be FPS? We live in the era of 3D technology, which should give us more freedom of perspective. How about third person? How about 3D "bird's eye" perspective? How about "cinematic view" ala Alone in the Dark or SSI's Stronghold? How about rotating camera like that of Syndicate Wars? Alas, action games are getting more and more confined in first-person view, and even RPGs start eschewing bird-eye perspective in favor of first-person.

The melee action in Star Control 2 is entirely two-dimensional, yet it still gives simple yet exciting action without having to resort to 3D. In fact, some of the gameplay concept wouldn't work very well in more complex world of 3D. Imagine how hard is would be to aim Orz Nemesis' swivel-mounted gun at one direction while going to another direction if you play with first-person perspective.

I'm not saying that every action game should follow the route of Star Control 2. In fact, if modern games are all clones of Star Control 2's melee, then I'll start complaining as well. My point is there are more ways to enjoy action than first-person.

Second, I actually ask more than FPS with RPG elements. Again, let me use Sword of Samurai as example; its RPG element is pretty thin (you only have few stats, you don't have multitudes of +2 weapons, etc), but you are calling your own shots. Would you kidnap you rival's family members to improve your standing? Would you rather insult him in front of your Daimyo and/or challenge him for a duel? Would you instead weed out those robbers who terrorize your subjects to increase your reputation and honor? You decide.

Is SoS a sandbox game? Not quite, since it still has coherent goal. Is SoS an "action game with RPG elements"? Perhaps, but not quite. Is Sos a strategy game? Maybe, but it's an action game as well. Does it matter? No. What matters is that it provides multi-dimensional gameplay with multiple elements while combining those elements right.

You know, if you go to www.yoyogames.com you'll find many indie game developers with good, unique gameplay (along with a lot of very poor quality games). View some of their contest winners to see some really cool stuff. Maybe not the depth of gameplay you're looking for, but certainly unique.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

It was the first time it came around --certainly much better than Doom 3. But fine, replace it with Far Cry and it's still basically the same.

It's not the same. Half Life 2 wasn't much of a refinement from Half Life. It's two major upgrades were graphical detail and physics gameplay. Far Cry was an FPS with a semi sandbox approach - ie, you could choose your approach and progress as tactically or as directly as you preferred within the scope of each level. The enemies of Far Cry have a much more intelligent appraisal of their landscape and can detect the player with more than just the one sense, sight, they can also hear you.

It is rewarding, but when every other action game out there gives you the same kind of reward, then I need to load DOSBOX and play Their Finest Hour for different kind of reward.

To each their own. I find Their Finest Hour and SWOTL to be some of the worst gaming to be had. Carrier Command, Battlezone II and Ground Control offer so much more depth and they vary in age from being much older (Carrier Command) to much newer (the others).

It was also a normal trope of Xenon 2: Megablast. Now, if game companies in the old times followed the safe route of "refine this proven formula over and over again" like they are now, we would have been limited to clones of Xenon 2: Megablast instead of Their Finest Hour, Covert Action, and Populous. Fortunately, that was not the case in the old days. See the difference now?

I'm not blind, nor stupid. I see your POV but I don't agree with it. Humanity always strives for refinement. Every single sport's rules of engagement change over time to reflect advances in technology yet the basis of the games themselves don't change at all; Soccer is still a two team aside game with goals at each end yet the various rules have changed over time The same is true of computer gaming genres.

Did you miss the part where I praised S.T.A.L.K.E.R as exception?

I didn't but I think I'm beginning to care less about what you say because you talk about your 'praise' as if it's worth something. I didn't realise that you were some guru whose opinion we all need to care about. I'm sorry, but unless you actively want to add something to the gaming development process then it tends to become annoying to have to hear waaah waah waaah's about the state of gaming.

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

You praised STALKER, so I just assumed you liked that type of game.

You're still missing the point. And frankly, this is also the same problem with game publishers these day; they all assume what the gamers want is "FPS with THIS", "FPS with THAT", etc, etc.

First, why do they all have to be FPS? We live in the era of 3D technology, which should give us more freedom of perspective. How about third person? How about 3D "bird's eye" perspective? How about "cinematic view" ala Alone in the Dark or SSI's Stronghold? How about rotating camera like that of Syndicate Wars? Alas, action games are getting more and more confined in first-person view, and even RPGs start eschewing bird-eye perspective in favor of first-person.

See above. Do something about it.

The melee action in Star Control 2 is entirely two-dimensional, yet it still gives simple yet exciting action without having to resort to 3D. In fact, some of the gameplay concept wouldn't work very well in more complex world of 3D. Imagine how hard is would be to aim Orz Nemesis' swivel-mounted gun at one direction while going to another direction if you play with first-person perspective.

I'm not saying that every action game should follow the route of Star Control 2. In fact, if modern games are all clones of Star Control 2's melee, then I'll start complaining as well. My point is there are more ways to enjoy action than first-person.

Toys for Bob's Star Control was a good game game, SCII was not as good. Why? Because the adventuring aspect is long and drawn out and the allegiances/battles don't affect the story ending in any valuable way. The combat system was CRAP and it was actually insulting to veteran gamers who grew up cutting their teeth on Paradroid, Parallax and Uridium.

Second, I actually ask more than FPS with RPG elements. Again, let me use Sword of Samurai as example; its RPG element is pretty thin (you only have few stats, you don't have multitudes of +2 weapons, etc), but you are calling your own shots. Would you kidnap you rival's family members to improve your standing? Would you rather insult him in front of your Daimyo and/or challenge him for a duel? Would you instead weed out those robbers who terrorize your subjects to increase your reputation and honor? You decide.

Is SoS a sandbox game? Not quite, since it still has a coherent goal. Is SoS an "action game with RPG elements"? Perhaps, but not quite. Is Sos a strategy game? Maybe, but it's an action game as well. Does it matter? No. What matters is that it provides multi-dimensional gameplay with multiple elements while combining those elements right.

It's a sandbox game with RTS overtones. It may be a game that you enjoy but don't blow smoke up its ass dude.

Cryo's Dune was a somewhat similar mix with a much tougher realm of content to deal with and that was a hit back in the day.

Many games are mixing genres these days, it's nothing new.

*sigh*

dh4rm4 wrote:

It's not the same. Half Life 2 wasn't much of a refinement from Half Life. It's two major upgrades were graphical detail and physics gameplay. Far Cry was an FPS with a semi sandbox approach - ie, you could choose your approach and progress as tactically or as directly as you preferred within the scope of each level.

Yet you're still advancing through levels, and yet the POV is still first-person. And there are people who are bored to death with the same basics of gameplay over and over again. So no, refinement alone is not enough.

dh4rm4 wrote:

I'm not blind, nor stupid. I see your POV but I don't agree with it. Humanity always strives for refinement. Every single sport's rules of engagement change over time to reflect advances in technology yet the basis of the games themselves don't change at all; Soccer is still a two team aside game with goals at each end yet the various rules have changed over time The same is true of computer gaming genres.

Humanity wants variety as well, "dude". The reasons why some people prefer older games because there were more variety in the basics of the gameplay, instead of recycling the same formula over and over again.

dh4rm4 wrote:

Did you miss the part where I praised S.T.A.L.K.E.R as exception?

I didn't but I think I'm beginning to care less about what you say because you talk about your 'praise' as if it's worth something. I didn't realise that you were some guru whose opinion we all need to care about.

Very nice strawman. Somehow you conveniently forget that I praised those games to show that I'm not just "missing my old games and wanting them with a new coat of paint" like you've accused, instead of wanting to be a guru or something.

dh4rm4 wrote:

I'm sorry, but unless you actively want to add something to the gaming development process then it tends to become annoying to have to hear waaah waah waaah's about the state of gaming.

By that logic then, audiences should not be allowed to complain about the bad movies they saw, because they're not movie makers and cannot add something to movie development process. Maybe negative reviews shouldn't be allowed either, unless the reviewer happens to be game developer.

dh4rm4 wrote:

See above. Do something about it.

See above. So you're not allowed to say anything about the quality of the meal unless you're the cook, eh?

You know what, I'm getting the impression that you're a game publisher PR who reacts negatively to criticism. We are not merely "waaah-waaahing" about modern games; we also mention the reasons why we think old games are (generally) better. Game publishers and developers who read our complaints can either use the mentioned reasons for improvements, or bury their head in the sand and accuse us of "waah-waaahing" like you did.

dh4rm4 wrote:

The melee action in Star Control 2 is entirely two-dimensional, yet it still gives simple yet exciting action without having to resort to 3D. In fact, some of the gameplay concept wouldn't work very well in more complex world of 3D. Imagine how hard is would be to aim Orz Nemesis' swivel-mounted gun at one direction while going to another direction if you play with first-person perspective.

I'm not saying that every action game should follow the route of Star Control 2. In fact, if modern games are all clones of Star Control 2's melee, then I'll start complaining as well. My point is there are more ways to enjoy action than first-person.

Toys for Bob's Star Control was a good game game, SCII was not as good. Why? Because the adventuring aspect is long and drawn out and the allegiances/battles don't affect the story ending in any valuable way. The combat system was CRAP and it was actually insulting to veteran gamers who grew up cutting their teeth on Paradroid, Parallax and Uridium.

Nitpick as usual. Really, I cannot see how your SC2-bashing rebukes my point. Paradoid and Parallax are not 3D first-person either, so yes, my point still stands: an exciting action game doesn't always need to be first-person 3D.

dh4rm4 wrote:

It's a sandbox game with RTS overtones. It may be a game that you enjoy but don't blow smoke up its ass dude.

So after keep evading the point and making various nitpicks, you eventually resort to ad-hominem? I can hear you furiously pleasuring yourself from here, please beware of skin irritation.

dh4rm4 wrote:

Cryo's Dune was a somewhat similar mix with a much tougher realm of content to deal with and that was a hit back in the day.

And in which year was Cyro's Dune issued? 2008? Oh, wait....

dh4rm4 wrote:

Many games are mixing genres these days, it's nothing new.

*sigh*

Many games are recycling over the same safe formula over and over again these days, instead of cleverly mixing various gameplay elements, despite the fact that the latter is not really a new concept.

*sigh*

All of which is true. Can you actually be motivated enough to do something about it? I'm risking everything I have so I can inject some new ideas into the game industry. My savings, my futuire, my security. I'm scared as all hell, but I'm doing it.

How much do you really care? Seriously, sit back and think for a minute.

dh4rm4 wrote:

All of which is true. Can you actually be motivated enough to do something about it? I'm risking everything I have so I can inject some new ideas into the game industry. My savings, my futuire, my security. I'm scared as all hell, but I'm doing it.

And how does this appeal to motives fallacy have anything to do with the arguments being discussed? Assuming that you're really risking everything to improve game industry like you claim, how does it change the fact many gamers want gameplay innovation and variety instead of recycling the same formula over and over again?

If you're a game enterpreneur and/or developer, then why don't you take our complaints as feedback to enrich your idea ("oh, people want this instead of that"), instead of launching various strawmen and nitpicks to attack our complaints? GoG realizes the fact that people love old games for reasons, and they view it as business opportunity instead of bitching about it.

Unless, of course, if your goal is to be the next "MacDonald's of gaming"; playing it safe, recycling the same formula over and over again, and profiting greatly from the "mainstream gamers" by doing so. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with that in itself, but any debating between us will be pointless since we already have different goals anyway (consumers want to play best games possible, while producers want to maximize profit with the least effort possible).

I have to admit that our complaints won't matter much, since we're always a minority compared to "mainstream gamers" and consolers out there. And really, we just explain what we like and what we don't like. We can blame game publishers for issuing the same crap over and over again, but we can't really blame them for trying to maximize profits.

However, someday maybe even the mainstream gamers will get fed up with the same basic gameplay over and over again. 3D technology will probably reach its limits, and game publishers will need to improve gameplay to differentiate (because they cannot differentiate by using graphics and sound anymore). Even now, more and more people download DOSBOX, while reselling old games becomes a viable core business. Maybe computer games will be innovative again, I hope.

dh4rm4 wrote:

How much do you really care? Seriously, sit back and think for a minute.

Care enough to try explaining what I love from old games and why I, as consumer, would really like to see those elements in new games.

I think probably the biggest factor into "Why do modern video games suck so badly" is that people really don't care.

I see all the time on forums about how people come home from work and they want to play a game but they don't want it to be too "complicated" or "involved" or "too long". Basically they want the equivalent of a commercial/American Idol/other non-complicated TV shows. This accounts for the majority of the populace which is why those TV shows are so popular. Until you can change that then the majority of PC/Console games will always be like that and will never change.

That's the main reason FPS's on the PC haven't changed much. The XBOX basically brought FPS's to the console (yes they were around on consoles before but not really), so FPS'S were brought to the "mainstream" and prevented from evolving further.

It's only going to get worse as time goes on but the niche of games with deeper gameplay will of course still be around.

There's no reason that games need to be dumbed down because you spent 8 hours at work. I spentd 10 hours a day/5 days a week at work but I can still pick up a deep book and get right back into the story. I can resume watching LOST/Sopranos/etc without any issue. I can pickup from any 40+hr RPG I've been playing for the last week. I'm amazing I know. 😀

KAN : Oh god, not more of the 'rules of debating' crap. Please spare me. The internet is filled with failed public speakers who love to quote 'straw man', 'ad hominem' et al....it's so fucking boring...the internet is humming with this constant noise of faux nerd rage...

Come on now, how much do you really care? This endless stream of debate is not caring. Can you program, write, make music? Well if you can AND you're motivated enough join me in risking it all. Criticism is EASY. Actually doing something is hard. It's soul destroying, or haven't you noticed?

Oh for fuck's sake, if I say the sky is blue, should you check whether the sky is actually blue like I say, or should you check whether I actually give a shit about the color of the sky?

It's not about 'debating rules crap' or such thing; it is that you brought up things that are irrelevant to the points being discussed. What really annoys me is not your opposing views, but your endless streaming of nitpicks which doesn't even touch the points themselves. Does it matter if you think Their Finest Hour is crappy when it shows that it gives different kind of rewards than advancing to the next level? Does it really matter if Privateer has numerous flaws when people like its dynamic world better than scripted missions or linear levels? It's really tiring to deal with nitpicks, because you have to explain over and over again what your points really are.

Within my own constraints, I'm actually willing to do what I can if it could help making good games, but again, how the hell does it relevant to the argument itself?

But the nitpicks as you call them are examples of the nature of your self blindsiding - you talk about Privateer in godly terms as a comparison to 'McDonald's gaming' and repetitive FPS games, yet in truth it's one of the same brigade - it was a limited and cookie cutter copy of ELITE squished into the Wing Commander II engine AND it took.advantage the space/flight sim craze of the time. IYet for you, it's somehow a great example of games that push boundaries. The sequels, which are both better games in all regards - more open, deeper, better made and less intruded apon by their publisher (EA killed anything good that ORIGIN stood for and Privateer was at the tail end of that awful relationship) - are games you fail to mention unless prompted. You're blindsided by nostalgia and this just one example.

The whole debate sprang up because you posted a blog entry which somehow validates your views on the lack of originality in the game industry. The blog actually doesn't say that games lack oriiginality these days, but rather, that deep sims are something that the blog writer (Chris Taylor) misses and that those sorts of games are unlikely to be made, or remade as the case may be, these days. Yet the debate ensued after you posted comments on my comments (and other posters) in response to the blog entry. It wasn't your soapbox, but you used it as such.

My issue is with what this debate has become, what they all become - more waaah waaah waaah noise in the internet. I don't want to debate endlessly about the failing state of this, or how much better things were then than they are now because it's all false, self deceptive claptrap. If all of that noise could bubble away I'd be a much happier human being.

I'm all for nostalgia but I just don't go in for 'in mah day' commentary anymore.

dh4rm4 wrote:

But the nitpicks as you call them are examples of the nature of your self blindsiding - you talk about Privateer in godly terms as a comparison to 'McDonald's gaming' and repetitive FPS games, yet in truth it's one of the same brigade - it was a limited and cookie cutter copy of ELITE squished into the Wing Commander II engine AND it took.advantage the space/flight sim craze of the time. IYet for you, it's somehow a great example of games that push boundaries. The sequels, which are both better games in all regards - more open, deeper, better made and less intruded apon by their publisher (EA killed anything good that ORIGIN stood for and Privateer was at the tail end of that awful relationship) - are games you fail to mention unless prompted. You're blindsided by nostalgia and this just one example.

Sigh...... Here we go again, back to f**king square one.

You're still missing the point, are you? Privateer, even with its flaws and shortcomings, has (somewhat) dynamic interaction with its world, which is still deeper than canned missions and/or linear levels. Freelancer is a better game than Privateer, and naturally a much better game than repetitive "MacDonald's-style" FPS.

Unfortunately, most game publishers today tend to follow the tried-and-true formula of the mainstream (linear levels, first-person perspective, etc, etc) instead of creating breakthrough like Freelancer. While I cannot speak for other old game lovers, I believe we do acknowledge good new games like Grand Theft Auto or Freelancer --it is the TRENDS that we don't like.

How many f**king times should I say this? Did you just conveniently ignore others' complaints, which basically say the same thing? Tell me, are you always be so dense? Do you disagree just for the sake of having disagreement?

dh4rm4 wrote:

The whole debate sprang up because you posted a blog entry which somehow validates your views on the lack of originality in the game industry. The blog actually doesn't say that games lack oriiginality these days, but rather, that deep sims are something that the blog writer (Chris Taylor) misses and that those sorts of games are unlikely to be made, or remade as the case may be, these days.

Yeah, right. Here, quoted directly from the blog.

Chris Taylor's blog wrote:

These days the PC gaming industry has really narrowed its focus down to four major genres: […]
Show full quote

These days the PC gaming industry has really narrowed its focus down to four major genres:

* First-person shooters where you blow up Nazis (or the undead, or aliens, or genetic experiments gone wrong, or—let's get really original—undead Nazi genetic experiments gone wrong!)
* Hack-and-slash RPGs
* League-branded sports games
* Massively multiplayer online games that feature one of the above.

dh4rm4 wrote:

Yet the debate ensued after you posted comments on my comments (and other posters) in response to the blog entry. It wasn't your soapbox, but you used it as such.

Nope, the debate ensued after YOU posted comments on MY comments. I commented on jamon51's comments before you made your first comment on mine. Try again.

dh4rm4 wrote:

My issue is with what this debate has become, what they all become - more waaah waaah waaah noise in the internet.

You are really getting on my nerves now. Nitpick annoys me, but bullshit annoys me even more. Others --including me-- have explained quite specifically why they prefer old games.

Here, some quotes to show you that it's not "waaaah waaaaah" (emphasis mine).

Chris Taylor wrote:

Where is the modern-day equivalent of something like Infiltrator, which mixed helo flying with something like an FPS (more like third-person shooter, really).

Or a modern multiplayer X-COM, which could include include a flight sim, real-time strategy/economic elements, and a first person shooter? Something like that is just not on the radar at all.

FeedingDragon wrote:

On the other hand, and I hate to use this term, back in the day, programmers were almost always looking for a gimmick. Something that made their game totally unique. Ultima IV's virtue system comes to mind. Thief's concentration on stealth and sneaking (actually penalizing those who just run around killing things.) Dungeon Keeper's reversal of role (you play the evil boss that heroes are trying to destroy.)

jamon51 wrote:

I play mostly modern games but tend to gravitate toward those with a little more depth to them.

One thing I have often lamented is this. I love Gunship 2000, especially the multiple helicopter control. I also love Battlefield Vietnam's helicopters. I'd love to combine BFV's choppers and graphics engine into a GS2000-style single player campaign, with dynamic objectives, multiple chopper control, etc.

KAN wrote:

Probably that's also why I always think that mid to later 90s is the best period for flight sim, because it has titles like Total Air War and Mig Alley which give us dynamic gameplay and strategic involvement without "punishing" us too much with realism.

KAN wrote:

The melee action in Star Control 2 is entirely two-dimensional, yet it still gives simple yet exciting action without having to resort to 3D. In fact, some of the gameplay concept wouldn't work very well in more complex world of 3D. Imagine how hard is would be to aim Orz Nemesis' swivel-mounted gun at one direction while going to another direction if you play with first-person perspective.

See, those are not "WAAAAAH, WAAAAAH", Dr. Genius. Those are ideas. Should I scream to tell you the obvious? IDEAS.

The reason I wrote this thread is because I hope this can turn to be something productive and positive. To let the old game lovers to post their "structured rants", which (hopefully, but usually) contain ideas how a good game should be made, what elements it should have, etc. Who knows, we may get lucky and some fledgling game developers actually read this thread and consider the ideas seriously.

BUT NOOOOO. You really have to turn this thread into a flame war by being such a stone deaf.

dh4rm4 wrote:

I'm all for nostalgia but I just don't go in for 'in mah day' commentary anymore.

Again. AGAIN. AGAIN. Did you just conveniently ignore my post that I DO appreciate new games as long as they are, you know, good? How many times should I point out that this is not merely about f**king nostalgia?

This whole discussion is going f**king nowhere. It doesn't matter how many times I should scream the obvious, you'll keep going back to square one while totally ignoring the points have been made.

EDIT: this is the very first time I have to self-censor myself on Vogons. Congratulation, dh4rm4.

Deep healing breaths, guys.

dh4rm4: Yay 😀 another person who agrees with me that EA slaughtered Origin system. IMHO, Origin systems was the BEST game company of all time.

Ok, sorry, back on topic:

I have to agree with snover here, certain people need to calm down a little please 😀

On the topic of Privateer -v- Elite. Maybe I did something wrong with Elite, (played it on the C64 then the Amiga,) but I never came across an overall plot. It was just a basic trading/combat game. The only goal I could find was to get the Elite ranking. Privateer had a story line and plot to follow, with a game over conclusion, though it has been a fairly long time since I've played either. So, Privateer had the added gimmick of adding in a definative story line that Elite didn't have, and the Trading gimmick that Wing Commander didn't have. So, while not completely imaginative, it is better than many of the modern games I've seen.

Everyone still needs to remember, though, that imaginative (risky,) games are still coming out. They are just in the minority. Also, when they do come out, if they are successful, you can expect almost endless knockoffs and sequels to come out for a while. Personally, in most cases (though not all,) I find that game sequels tend to be as poor as many movie sequels.

I always love multiple-layered games and I'd like to see them again. The following is what I think would make a game worth dying for:

(1) The top layer is strategic level, when you call the shots, make decision, allocate resources, etc to reach "the ultimate goal". There should be many ways to reach the "ultimate goal". For instance, in Civilization, military conquest or territory size are not the only parameters that define your success.

(2) The bottom layer is the "action game" part, where you ain't shooting things around because the level script says so. Instead, the parameters and objectives are dynamically defined by the decision you make in the strategic level. In turn, your success (or failure) in executing those action parts should affect your strategic position as well. Losing in the action part should not always mean "game over" or "restart that level again". Instead, the game should give you the opportunity to exact revenge later.

(3) Between two layers, you can insert more layers (or sub-layers) where you explore the world and interact with its environment. Otherwise, if you want to make a "seamless" game world, you can integrate the exploration part with the action part.

(4) The computer AI should be smart and proactive. In Sword of the Samurai, your AI rivals want to be Shogun too! Thus, you don't play the "mini action games" merely to execute your plan; sometimes you are forced to do the action parts to defend yourself from your rival's offensive move. IMO, this adds more depth than just "enemies who actively seek you" in more refined FPS.

(5) The game should have random events and/or "enemy-generated events" that affect your strategy. Some of those events should act as "bonus" instead of mandatory things. You should be able to choose to react to an event, or just ignore it and proceed with your initial plan. If you choose to ignore the event, it should not always ruin your strategic position.

(6) It's always nice to have smart friendly AI and alliances that matter. Games like EF2000 V2.0 has smart opposing AI, but annoyingly weak wingmen AI. In Gunship 2000, on the other hand, the friendly AI is pretty smart to help you when your hands are full.

(7) Since the game is multi-layered, each layer should be simple enough for the player to learn. For example, the action layer should not necessarily be an uber-realistic flightsim. There are reasons why I turn down all the flight-realited realism in Falcon 4.0, because I simply want to play the action as the result of my strategic decision, without having to struggle with realism. Complexity should be an option instead of requirement.

Conclusion:

I believe, in order to create game a game like described above, developers should not focus in genres. I think the reasons why most modern games are nothing but refinement of the same basic of gameplay is because developers tend to think in genres.

I'm not a telepath; I could not read the minds of the great developers at Microprose when they made wonderful works like Covert Action, Sword of the Samurai, and Red Storm Rising. Nonetheless, here's what I try to deduce: I think they start from themes instead of genre. What theme would make an enjoyable gaming experience? Is it cold war? Espionage? Etcetera. And then they designed layers (strategic layer, action layer, etc) around the theme. Probably this is why makes "genre-crossing" in Microprose games are fluid and seamless. Probably this also explains why Red Storm Rising and Pirates! play so differently despite both were created with the same creative mindset (as opposed to genre mindset).

Again, I couldn't read their minds, but it seems they think that "strategy", "role-play", and "action" are elements instead of genres. So instead of "let's make an FPS genre with strategic elements", I think they start with more abstract mindset like, "let's make a game where you play as a pirate captain. Now, what a pirate is supposed to do? Ah, yes, swordfight. That's the action element Oh, and a pirate captain should also decide which city to raid to maximize his money. That's the strategy part. But wait, the pirate captain should collect information to make his decision. That should be part of the exploration and interaction part." Etc, etc. I think the great thing about this more abstracted mindset is because it facilitates more variation where different theme can generate very different basics of gameplay.

Now, if only game companies today have such mindset instead of refining the same genre over and over again....

Final note: I'm not trying to pretend to be a guru. Heck, I'm not even a damn designer. I'm merely a gamer who try to learn what makes Covert Action great and Doom 3 boring. Furthermore, the ideas above are definitely not the Ultimate Panacea for Great Gameplay (TM). There are still more things beyond my grasp like how a good game story should be, or how good refinements should be. Covert Action, for instance, still needs refinements despite its overally good and addicting gameplay. Thus, please put your ideas as well.

Eventually, I do hope that we may get lucky that a game developer come here and take our ideas seriously; thus, creating the great game we want. However, it seems I'm hoping too much. 😵