[OT] Games disappointment

[greengrass]

i played my first games in the mid 80s.
about 90% of all games i played (excluding quests) are based on the same logic: you kill enemies, get to the next level, kill more and stronger enemies, get to the next level and so on.
often there are money or gold or another kind of universal economic resource involved.
i'm tired of this, i'm sure some of you are too, and i'm sure even developers are.
is it so hard for the industry to get to their "next level"? i mean not just visually?

[Rurouni Storm]

Originally posted by greengrass
is it so hard for the industry to get to their "next level"? i mean not just visually?

The problem is that there really aren't that many other ways to do a game. Games HAVE to be linear (do A before B before C) or "freeform" (every game does have limits)

And, yes, I agree that most developers seem engrossed in graphics, but that sadly seems to be a selling point for most games (just look at Halo 2)

[Second Chance]

It wouldn't be too hard for the "industry" to get to this next level you're speaking of; if there was a reason to go there.

This complaint is as old as civilization itself and applies to all commercial endeavors, not just games. Commercial groups and Coprorations that make up the bulk of an "industry" are rarely innovators, they're profit-makers. They make their livelihood from producing a consistent product that there is a demand for. The reason the "game industry" doesn't go to "the next level" in game design is because there's no immediate demand for it, hence, no profit in it. You have this complaint because you've been playing games for a long while. You see the repetition in the product and have become bored. But every day there are millions of new young people around the world getting their hands on their first game using this game logic, and they love it! And collectively they spend billions of dollars on exact clones of these games (how different is the gameplay really between Q1, Q2, Q3, Doom1, 2, 3, etc.). This is where the money is, so why would the "industry" put out anything else?

Of course, the typical gamer would say, "But if they did this they would make so much more money!" But the truth is; you don't know that. Chances are, most of the industry has already focus grouped the idea and determined that the investment wouldn't be worth the return.

But all is not lost! Every once in a great while someone will come along (usually an independent) and offer something different (think of John Carmack before anyone ever heard of an FPS). If this becomes popular and sells units, then you can be sure the "industry" will be right on it with a thousand clones (think of SUV's, MiniVans or reality-tv). But that's the point; they're all clones. That's why it takes so long to see any kind of changes in any industry.

The development of new and different game types is a long evolutionary process. And the timing has to be exactly right. We may have to wait another ten years before the next Carmack comes out with some revolutionary new concept in gaming. Or, it could be right around the corner. Either way; until it happens, we're stuck with what we've got. If you really want to see a change, go out and make one. Who knows, you might just be the gaming messiah we're all waiting for.

I myself, frustrated with the limitations and faulty (in my view) design of every space-sim I've ever bought, have finally picked up the gauntlet. After watching Milo for years and seeing what one man can accomplish, I've decided to set about constructing my own space-sim. One that'll do things the way I think they should be done. I'm in the process of choosing a 3D engine API for it right now. I'm leaning towards Crystal Space. Maybe it'll become the next big thing and change gaming forever. Or maybe no one will like it at all and I'll end up playing with it in obscurity. Either way, it's a labor of love. And that's how things get changed.

Disclaimer: Obviously things are more complicated than I've put them here, but you get the point.

[greengrass]

@Rurouni Storm: regarding linear games - you will move thru the game/storyline in linear style, doing A before B, but it's good when you have freedom to make a decision i.e. choose between A1, A2 etc

lets say you have missiom to deliver cargo and you can choose - go this way and face combat, or go other way and sneak thru enemy teritory unnoticed, or take the third way and be ambushed by pirates - voila, you have 3 choices on A

@Second Chance: ok i can feel the darkness in the first half of your post and the light in this darkness in the second half.
can you post your list of space sim annoyances please?

here's mine top 10:

1. simplistic economy
2. unreal physics
3. unreal technology
4. ridiculous alien races
5. ridiculous spaceship design
6. stupid A.I.
7. aerodynamic forms of ships which dont fly in atmosphere
8. unreal distances
9. planets totally ignored
10. unreal size/proportions of spaceships, planets etc

now dont get me wrong, i am not a hater, there are many things i like in the games (scripting languages, freeform etc).

[Rurouni Storm]

Originally posted by greengrass
@Rurouni Storm: regarding linear games - you will move thru the game/storyline in linear style, doing A before B, but it's good when you have freedom to make a decision i.e. choose between A1, A2 et

Yeah, I like to have at least that. Unfortunately, as even the mighty Half Life 2 demonstrates, most companies aren't even willing to go that far.

[WX_Peregrin]

lets say you have missiom to deliver cargo and you can choose - go this way and face combat, or go other way and sneak thru enemy teritory unnoticed, or take the third way and be ambushed by pirates - voila, you have 3 choices on A

Some games already give you choices like that.

If you are searching for a good freeform game...Morrowind has a 'story' but it's completely open ended in gameplay. You dont have to do the quests, and you can basically go anywhere or do anything.

Or if you arent frustrated by complete open-endedness, you could always play an MMO like EVE Online or something.

But even in single player games, sometimes choices like these are given to you through the gameplay, but you are unaware of it.

Unfortunately, as even the mighty Half Life 2 demonstrates, most companies aren't even willing to go that far.

The path is linear, but thanks to the physics you can get around the beaten path once in a while. At one checkpoint you were supposed to go around and fight your way through enemies, and then unplug a generator creating a forcefield. One guy built a ramp, and after about 20 minutes of ingenuity, was able to jump his vehicle over it.

Even so, HL2 is not the place to look for open-endedness. It had a story to tell that couldnt effectively be expressed if it was more open-ended.

[Second Chance]

@greengrass - I completely empathize with many of the points you've listed, but I don't like to make specific complaints unless I can also offer a useable solution. Additionally, many of my gripes would make a game no longer commercially viable, as I believe I'm heavily in the minority. Instead, maybe we could all discuss the differences in our ideas of how we'd like space-sims (specifically) to work?

For example, one thing I would like to see are fewer hard-coded story events and more dynamically generated story events. More often than not, I find myself playing through the first quarter of a sim game and then just jumping into whatever it's version of Instant Action is. It seems I'm rarely (if ever) interested in what the story behind the game is and more interested in simply being immersed in the game's environment.

The problem with this type of approach (and one reason that developers shy away from it), is that of repeatability. It's very hard to test and debug a game that's based on random events. It also means that different players won't share a common experience, which makes the game difficult to discuss and share info about, or develop a strategy for. So stuck players can't get help from more experienced players. And even the same player will likely never have the same experience twice, which can be viewed as bad. Additionally, it means volumes more work for the developers, since the player is no longer restricted to a preset path.

But I honestly believe that this can be fully achieved. By spending less time and money on super-duper whiz-bang graphics, and more on the game's internal structure. By using a complex modular approach to game events, I believe truly original and reasonably sensible game events can be constantly generated in a dynamic fashion.

This sort of leads me to my next, and problably greatest gripe. The focus on graphics to the exclusion of all other game elements. It seems I've heard this same complaint time and again, but nobody ever acts on it. Since apparently the truth is that despite what everyone says super-duper whiz-bang graphics are all that anyone wants. I really miss the days when graphics were crappy to non-existent. And good solid gameplay was all a game had to offer.

I would also like to see better interfaces for the user. The idea of actually showing a bridge as the interface for the captain of a large spacecraft, a la Bridge Commander, should have been done from day one. Even just an immobile image of a bridge would suffice. This is one thing I think BC3K did right. It showed that you were actually on the bridge of a spaceship and not some kind of galactic hood ornament stuck into space off the front of the ship. And the same goes for smaller spacecraft that use cockpits. I want to see lots of structure, and not just a HUD in space. My personal solution is to use the mouse. It really never gets used in a cockpit simulation. I'd like a mouse-driven first person camera in a fully enclosed cockpit that will let me look where I want when I want. Along with a simple "center view" key to straighten out in a hurry if necessary. I'd really like to know if anyone else is interested in this kind of thing, as I plan to implement it into my own sim game.

But all of these are pretty superficial so far. If anyone actually starts discussing this topic I'll go into more detail. But until then, I am very sleepy and I need to go to bed. http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/3dlil/sleep.gif

[jessica00]

please, for the LOVE OF GOD, do NOT use the mouse as a CONTROL INPUT....freelancer....ugh..

:)

[Second Chance]

Do these posts actually get read, or are they just skimmed for recognizable words? Since I obviously didn't spell it out simplisticly enough I'll take it down a notch.

For the player's view into the game world in a cockpit-style sim game I would like to have a first-person, mouse-driven camera to use for looking into the cockpit and out the windows in the same manner as a real human head would. This would allow a much more natural view than what is currently standard. If I want to look to the side, or up or down, I just use the mouse as in a first person shooter. With a "center view" key to quickly return the view to straight ahead if necessary. Using this view structure I can also implement parts of the user interface in a more realistic way. For instance, UI elements can now be located in their actual places in the cockpit. Want to do a long-range scan of the area, look down and to the left on the cockpit side console to the scanner controls. Using a technique similar to, but more precise than, say, Bridge Commander, the appropriate UI element would highlight when the users view fell onto them. Then simply click the mouse button to activate (or whatever). Or right-click for additional options. EoC did a great job implementing the barest beginnings of this concept with its 3D cockpit that moved around your view during maneuvers. But I'd like to extend this concept to a fully surrounding cockpit model with a view controlled by the mouse instead of remaining rigidly centered. This has nothing to do with control inputs for the ship itself.

I like this idea because the sim immersion factor is much higher. And I'm looking for more of a simulator than just a game. So obviously, this wouldn't be appropriate for everything. But it is something I feel is very important to the immersion factor of a serious sim, presumably putting me in the minority. If this is something someone else would like to see developers implement, then please speak up. I would be nice to know that I'm not alone.

[Rurouni Storm]

Actually, the last couple of MS Flight Sims had that, IIRC.

[Second Chance]

I believe you're right. If I remember correctly, this is very similar to what I'm thinking of. I wish it would be brought to space sims.

[WX_Peregrin]

As for combat flight sims:

IL-2 Sturmovik already has and has had this for the past 4-5 years.

They even have a cool webcam program that allows you to tape a colored table tennis ball to your head, and your cam will track it, moving the cockpit camera around like a real person's head would.

[jessica00]

Originally posted by Second Chance
Do these posts actually get read, or are they just skimmed for recognizable words? Since I obviously didn't spell it out simplisticly enough I'll take it down a notch.

For the player's view into the game world in a cockpit-style sim game I would like to have a first-person, mouse-driven camera to use for looking into the cockpit and out the windows in the same manner as a real human head would. This would allow a much more natural view than what is currently standard. If I want to look to the side, or up or down, I just use the mouse as in a first person shooter. With a "center view" key to quickly return the view to straight ahead if necessary. Using this view structure I can also implement parts of the user interface in a more realistic way. For instance, UI elements can now be located in their actual places in the cockpit. Want to do a long-range scan of the area, look down and to the left on the cockpit side console to the scanner controls. Using a technique similar to, but more precise than, say, Bridge Commander, the appropriate UI element would highlight when the users view fell onto them. Then simply click the mouse button to activate (or whatever). Or right-click for additional options. EoC did a great job implementing the barest beginnings of this concept with its 3D cockpit that moved around your view during manuvers. But I'd like to extend this concept to a fully surrounding cockpit model with a view controlled by the mouse instead of remaining rigidly centered. This has nothing to do with control inputs for the ship itself.

I like this idea because the sim immersion factor is much higher. And I'm looking for more of a simulator than just a game. So obviously, this wouldn't be appropriate for everything. But it is something I feel is very important to the immersion factor of a serious sim, presumably putting me in the minority. If this is something someone else would like to see developers implement, then please speak up. I would be nice to know that I'm not alone.

you know it just hit me...you dont need the mouse...just get a trackIR. (but have mouse still for people without trackIR's)

the trackIR would add SOOO much to the immersion factor...yes....

[Second Chance]

I mentioned earlier discussing the differences in viewpoint and just thought of some good examples based on greengrass's list. One thing that he's annoyed by are aerodynamic ship designs for craft not intended for aerodynamic flight models, ie; unrealistic design. This annoyance made it into his top ten list, so he obviously feels very strongly about it. Whereas I have a completely opposite point of view regarding spaceship design. All I want out of ship design is something that I think looks cool, and makes me feel cool when I fly it. This may seem contrary to what I said above about wanting more of a sim than a game, but bear with me for a moment.

Greengrass's number two annoyance is unrealistic physics. Being number two, I assume it has almost the greatest importance to him. Again, I have a completely opposite point of view. I hate the jousting tournaments you invariably end up with due to AI that doesn't understand true physics. I guess that what this tells me is that it's not more of a simulator I'm looking for, but more of a movie-like experience.

Anyway, I'm using these two examples to try to illustrate a point about the difficulty of designing a commercially viable space-sim game. Space-sims are unique in that they are one of the only sim-type games that I can think of that can bend the rules of design to the breaking point and not really be criticized for it. Let me explain: If you bought an airplane simulator, and it didn't implement stalling physics for the wings, such that you could pull off the power and pull back the controls until the plane either hovered or flipped onto it's back you'd be pretty annoyed at it's lack of realism. Conversely, if you bought an overhead scrolling airplane game that only allowed side-to-side movement and were then repeatedly attacked from above (a place you can't shoot), you'd be annoyed an the inclusion of realism. But space-sims are routinely released with a nonsensical mixture of realistic and unrealistic elements because, thanks to movies, we don't all share a common concept of what space should be like. So we're more willing to accept what we don't like as long as we get some of what we do like. But ultimately, none of us are ever fully satisfied.

If space-sims were held to the same standards of realism that other sim games are, they would be appealing to a very small group indeed. And since game design is, generally, an evolutionary process, I have to believe that the current crop of features are the ones most generally agreed upon by common opinion. Unfortunately for me, I believe the developers are focusing in all the wrong places.

So, rather than gripes, here's a small list of areas I think deserve more focus (not necessarily in any order):

1. Immersion factor for all immediate environments (cockpit, bridge, spaceports, planets, etc.). This includes more and better interactivity, better audio cues and more detail in how the environment is interacted with.

2. Time compression and things to do during long trips. I'm highly in favor of making trips take a long time, but this is something most people complain about as being boring. To solve this I'd like to have something to do to fill the time during these trips (tinker with ship performance, plot more efficient courses, mini-games, check the galactic stock market, etc.). This directly relates to greengrass's complaint about unrealistic distances.

3. A game world driven by dynamic events rather than a scripted storyline. I don't always want to be a galactic hero and save the universe. Sometimes I just want to live out my little fantasies about being a space-barge pilot in an open-ended never-ending universe where there is no "end." Sort of like a single player mmorpg.

4. Not necessarily realistic, but at least reasonable, ship and weapon designs. I can't think of anything that bothers me more than the idea of destroying massive battlecruisers with fighters. Mainly due to the lack of variety in weapons. Did you know that the gigantic turrets on the EoC cruisers do the same damage as the gun on the command section? There's not really much point in building massive, slow, easily attacked warships when ten tiny little hard-to-hit fighters with the same firepower can do the job exponentially cheaper and with a higher survivability rate. I'd like to see a game where anyone who takes a lone fighter against a large warship gets exactly what they deserve; a quick ride on the short bus to the cemetary. Either that, or the acknowledgement that large scale firepower no longer requires large scale power generation, and thus makes the construction of bulky, easily damaged warships unnecessary.

5. AI. (nuff said.)

6. Money. I agree with greengrass that there should at least be a rudimentary economy, if appropriate. One of my biggest complaints about EoC is the fact that there seems to be organization on a massive scale, yet there's apparently no such thing as money.

7. Planets. I'm so disapointed at the way planets are badly neglected in space sims. Without planets, there's no point to being in space. This is another element I liked in BC3K. Although hardly perfect (or even particularly well done), at least the attempt was made to include them.

You'll notice that the word "graphics" appears nowhere on the list. EoC's engine is several years old at this point, but I find that it works more than well for the job of representing space. As far as I'm concerned, graphics are the last thing on the list required to make a better space-sim.

[Parias]

Originally posted by Second Chance
4. Not necessarily realistic, but at least reasonable, ship and weapon designs. I can't think of anything that bothers me more than the idea of destroying massive battlecruisers with fighters. Mainly due to the lack of variety in weapons. Did you know that the gigantic turrets on the EoC cruisers do the same damage as the gun on the command section? There's not really much point in building massive, slow, easily attacked warships when ten tiny little hard-to-hit fighters with the same firepower can do the job exponentially cheaper and with a higher survivability rate. I'd like to see a game where anyone who takes a lone fighter against a large warship gets exactly what they deserve; a quick ride on the short bus to the cemetary. Either that, or the acknowledgement that large scale firepower no longer requires large scale power generation, and thus makes the construction of bulky, easily damaged warships unnecessary.

This is one thing that Freespace 2 did remarkably well - among the many other things it did "remarkably well", of course. On any difficulty above "Easy", most capital ships were a thing to be feared, especially Deimos corvettes, but the capital ships also seemed to exist for a tactical reason too, rather than just being a pretty background object or helpless escort item like most other games relegated those kinds of ships to.

Also, I disagree somewhat on the subject of graphics. An engine capable of putting forth a stunning display that makes the player sit back and go "wow" is actually quite important to my space gaming experience, which is why I whine so loudly every time a "new" and "revolutionary" space game comes out that has these pitiful weapon effects that utterly fail to impress me, while IWar2, and even the much, much older Freespace 2's special effects still clobber most modern-day constructs. I think Nexus is the first space game I've seen to actually have an overall level of graphical splendor equal or superior to the titles I mentioned. Good gameplay is one thing, but I also play my space games because I like seeing my geek penis get aroused from watching colossal fleets duke it out with beautiful beam cannons, flak fire, and missile explosions going off all over the place, and this is something most games irritatingly fail to provide. Despite Nexus, I still have yet to see any game whatsoever match the sheer amount of awesomeness and insanity witnessed in the mission "Endgame" from Freespace 2.

Edit: Just noticed that your post actually said that graphics were the last thing on the list required to make a "better" space sim, so I supposed I might have missed your point a little - my own point still stands though in how I'm annoyed that modern games have still failed to look more graphically pleasing overall than a number of ancient titles, and how most actually end up looking inferior. Yes, gameplay and overall atmosphere / immersion is very important (I agree wholeheartedly on the concept of 3D cockpits / bridges and how they should be used way more often), but I want my sexy beam cannons (http://members.shaw.ca/alvandyk/FS2CloseShave.jpg) damnit!

[Second Chance]

colossal fleets duke it out with beautiful beam cannons, flak fire, and missile explosions going off all over the place, and this is something most games irritatingly fail to provide. I'm glad you mentioned this. This is something that falls under the "immersion factor" for me. I totally agree that these elements are essential components for a battle in space, the only difference is that I would be satisfied with less sparkly graphics if it means including them or not. Although, I think we may differ in the fundamental reasons why we want these elements. You, as you said, are looking for a graphical feast of sexy beam cannons. While I am looking for at least a semi-realistic way in which these weapons might be employed on a large scale. But interestingly the results are, more or less, the same. Again illustrating how even subtle differences in what's important to us, and why, can cause a conflict when choosing what features will be focused on in a space-sim.

What I consider to be a pitiful weapon effect would be one from a weapon that is enourmously large, uses gobs of power and yet completely fails to be any more damaging or effective than every other physically smaller weapon. I am considering, literally, the effect of the weapon. I wholly believe in massive capital ship weapons that should instantly vaporize small player-sized craft on contact. Now the issue, of course, is one of play balance. It might at first seem unfair that the player could be killed so easily without even a chance of having the same advantage. But the solution seems simple. And I fail to understand why I've never seen it implemented. Obviously, a weapon of this size and power is intended to be used against other equally massive targets. This gun, by all rights, should not even be trying to target a craft as small as a player fighter (or whatever). So the balance is restored. The only time a player should be susceptible to a weapon of this type (whether the player is aware of this fact or not) should be when the player is using a ship of enough size and strength to warrant it being used on him.

I think the lack of weapon variety stems from the same core problem that spawns most of the other issues; too much focus on the player. Every element in a space-sim is essentially designed around how it will interact with the player. I feel that the elements should be designed around how they would realistically interact with each other, and the player will merely assume the role of one of those elements.

I also want to make myself clear on the subject of graphics as they relate to space-sims: I do believe they are very important. What I don't like is the focus on the development of new graphical tricks to the exclusion of full development of other game features (that quite obviously are in need of further development). But please don't think that I feel that graphics are unimportant to a space-sim.

*edit*
I completely forgot to add my most excrutiatingly annoying issue; the completely ignored importance of situational awareness in a space-based game. Situational awareness is critical to even just surviving. I'm so tired of the appallingly bad tactical displays provided in almost every space game. Ususally, they're relegated to some small corner of the HUD where they barely give you any information anyway. Situational awareness elements seem to be the black sheep of the HUD family. Unwanted, but nevertheless necessary. This I think is a direct result of Star Trek on our perception of space travel. All to often I see captains making these grand command decisions without any visible means of having any idea of where anything is around their ship. A more realistic use of that giant viewscreen at the front of the bridge would be to display an enormous situational awareness map of all the combatants. But that wouldn't be nearly as cool as seeing warships flash across the screen, guns blazing. And so such things are dismissed as unimportant. And so it is with space games as well.

I would like to see more work put into the creation of a good, useable situational awareness map to be integrated into the UI. One that shows me the position, speed and direction of everything around me. As well as their damage status and current fighting ability. (As an aside, I plan to offer a large format tactical map overlay option for the viewscreens in my own sim. This will allow excellent situational awareness, while simultaneously allowing a full "gee-whiz" view of the battle.)

[DrCR]

Originally posted by greengrass
@Rurouni Storm: regarding linear games - you will move thru the game/storyline in linear style, doing A before B, but it's good when you have freedom to make a decision i.e. choose between A1, A2 etc

I don't really mind linear. What really kills me is when you go from A to C, but the game totally ignories the fact you got to C and insists you get to C after/via B. Oh man, have I gone crazy over this one.

Part of the decisions concept is that if it does indeed change the storyline, the player ends up replaying a bunch of the campain later on to get to where he made a decision to see how the game unfolds if he selected another choice. If games had some way of allowing you to pickup from where you made a decision (IWar1 allowed this) then it can add a lot more to the campain (i.e. loss of the horrible "I bet this game, it's now no fun anymore" feeling (or at least delays the feeling until the player has totally exhausted the campain)).

[milod]

Originally posted by Second Chance
...commercially viable space-sim game.
No such thing.

[Second Chance]

LOL! :haha:

Good point.

And I really believe that the reason for this is, as I said, because the developers are focusing on the wrong elements. Most space-sims just aren't all that interesting. They're just plain too formulaic.

[milod]

Formulaic?

Pray tell, which of the following mega-hits would not qualify as "formulaic"?

Doom 3
Halo 2
Warcraft 3
World of Warcraft
Madden NFL 20xx
EA Sports NHL 20xx

By contrast, there is actually much more variety of gameplay in the space sim family. In the past five years, there have been story based games, freeform games, single player games, mmo games, fighter combat, starship combat, trading, exploration, and strategy games. There have been games with arcade action, and games with fairly hardcore newtonian physics. There have been games that combine several of the above play styles, and games that focus on just one or two core elements.

All of these games have only two things in common: they all involve some kind of space flight, and they all flopped.

[Second Chance]

Yep, you're right. Beats me what I was trying to say. Formulaic was obviously the wrong word.

Why do you think space-sims don't sell? Specifically. You must have some good insight, having worked with a publisher.

Other than the last sentence (which was apparently badly worded), the rest of my previous statement stands. As my opinion that is. I think that the elements of space-sims developers tend to focus on aren't really that interesting. For example; most space-sims completely revolve around combat and nothing else. You're generally either involved in combat or you're bored to tears flying from combat area A to combat area B. With absolutely nothing to do in between (hence the complaint about realistic distances). By comparison, even an FPS game doesn't spend more than 50% of its time in active combat (SP not deathmatch). And you're certainly not bored to death during the other 50%. There's places to explore, enemies to hide from, people to talk to (occasionally), storylines to piece together, and just generally a whole world to interact with. In space-sims, "space" is just a vehicle to get the player from combat area A to comabt area B. Since I'm not that into combat to begin with, virtually all space-sims leave me unfulfilled. Because there is zero else to do (except of course the boring repetitive tasks of mining or spreadsheeting a trading business, neither of which have anything to do with space travel or even sci-fi). "Combat" should not be the definition of a space-sim. And yet I keep hoping that one day I'll buy a game that will allow me to interact in a more complex manner with a more fully developed game world.

Which leads me to another under-developed aspect of space-sims I'd like to see addressed. The concept of getting out of your ship. Now I don't mean literally, with a whole different game engine to run around planets and space stations and such. I mean just something as simple as allowing me to land on a planet or dock at a station and giving me a different screen to look at. Just make me feel like I've gotten out of my ship, even for just a few minutes. I hate the idea of these game worlds in space where the ships and pilots basically become extensions of each other and never need to separate for any reason for the rest of their lives.

Well, that's two more cents from me. I think I'm almost up to a dollar. :p

[milod]

Well, I think you have done some good thinking about the problem. These are all things that I thought about when I was starting my own game design.

Of course, I wanted a military space combat simulation, so my answers to these questsion came out a bit different than yours. I wanted to maximize the player's involvement in combat, not by increasing the amount of shooting and dodging, but by expanding the scope of things that were related to combat. In other words, I wanted everything the player does (including the boring flying around bits, and reading news briefings in the menu system) to be part of combat by virtue of it having an impact on combat.

I don't think you can "mask" the boring bits by plastering them over with pointless minigames and makework. The player will see right through that and be bored anyway. Everything you ask the player to do has to further the main goal of the game in some obvious way. Think of Chess; every movement of every piece and pawn is done with the goal of controlling territory and winning the game.

To answer the question, I don't know why space sims don't sell. No one does. Perhaps space sims are like big band swing music in the fifties. Swing was once in fashion as THE popular music, but it was ultimately usurped by ever more dangerous rock-n-roll.

I'm not even sure that space sims were ever actually successful. Perhaps X-Wing and Wing Commander were simply the exceptions that prove the rule: Space sims only work if they are tied to a uniquely powerful story. Perhaps Wing Commander was the Myst of space sims. People played Myst because they were caught up in the environment and backstory, not because they actually enjoyed puzzle games. A great many people played Myst, and then never played another computer game except for Minesweeper. Perhaps Wing Commander, like Paris Hilton, was famous simply for being famous.

(Note, I am not suggesting that XWing and Wing Commander were not good space sims; they were both great. I'm just saying that maybe their popularity wasn't related to how good they were as space sims.)

I wonder what Stephen has to say about all this...

[Second Chance]

Wow, that was insightful. I fully agree that the player should not be given busywork to occupy time. But I think that useful, relevant activities can be provided to reinforce the immersion. As I mentioned earlier, things like tinkering with ship performance, communications, checking up on your business activities, reading the galacti-news, etc. The key is to provide things that the player would want to use that extra time for. The player has to say, "Ok, I've got X minutes before I get to my destination. Great, this is a perfect time to. . . (perform some necessary game task)." I prefer to think in terms of more generic activities to support my desire for a more dynamic game world.

I think it would be fair to say that space-sims never were really sucessful as a game genre. I really wish I knew why. Perhaps, much like the science fiction it's based on, it's stigmatized by the generally non-intellectual masses. Ironically, franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars seem to have done as much to add to this stigma as they have to popularize the genre. However, other sims are made or broken partly on how well they simulate their chosen subject. And I believe that the lack of a simulation standard (realistic or not) to hold space-sims to contributes to the problem. People never really know what to expect from one. But how can you create a standard for something that is intended to be bent to the will of its creator (i.e. science fiction). I also think your Myst analogy is particularly relevant.

Of course, without a doubt, we can see Starshatter reflects your specific intentions very well. And that makes me think. I wonder how large the dev teams were that developed the greatest and most sucessful space-sim titles. Perhaps a small team is the key to sucess in this genre. Maybe a space-sim needs to follow a very narrow and specific vision, and large dev teams (or large publishers?) tend to dilute the vision in pursuit of a widened appeal. The effect of which is losing what small core appeal it did have. Perhaps part of the secret is acknowledging that the audience will be small and maintaining a pure vision just for them. Insuring that they will be fully satisfied, and rave about it to like-minded friends. Insuring, in turn, a small but always positive investment return.

I too would like to hear Stephen's two cents on this subject.

[hoom]

From my point of view, the reason that space sims don't sell well is crap ship design & stupid reliance upon fighters.
The vast majority of spacesims simply have ridiculous looking, impractical ships & mostly little fighters at that.
Small fighters singlehandedly taking out entire armadas head to head.

I think whats needed is more stuff like Iwar & Nexus ie big, very cool looking ships with believable detailing & capabilities being the main focus.

Sooner or later someone needs to get round to making a Space:Total War with vast fleets of huge ships in easily controlled squadrons & task groups...

[Second Chance]

Ok, your points sound like they may be good ones, but could you be a little more specific? "Crap" ship design and "stupid" reliance on fighters is a little vague. If you mean simply that you don't like the design aesthetic of any space-sims you've come across then I can't believe that this would be the reason for the failure of an entire genre. However, if by "crap" ship design you mean far too generic roles and a one-size-fits-all attitude to craft design. And the fact that every space game seems to think that highly complex and expensive weapons of war (i.e. fighters) are not only easily available to anyone who wants one, but indeed apparently the only form of personal transportation available, then I heartily agree with you. And I don't think I need to repeat my feelings on small craft taking on large warships and winning. I'm interested in hearing what, specifically, you would like to see given more attention in a space-sim. Do you tend towards more realistic, or fantastic, sci-fi designs?

I too have an issue with reliance on fighters to make a space-sim. It seems as though, much like computer RPGs before them, space-sims have degenerated into a combat-only treadmill. The only reason to fight is to get better resources so you can fight more powerful enemies to get better resources to fight more powerful enemies, and so on. I think the majority of the work put into a space-sim seems to revolve around combat, as if there couldn't possibly be anything else for a space-sim to do. Combat is an important element for the sense of excitement, but it shouldn't be the only thing you can do.

That brings me to two other pet peeves I have about space-sims; crews and weapon mounts. First I'd like to talk about weapon mounts. Why is it that virtually every space-sim has computers that can navigate worm-holes or jumpgates across galactic space (without a crew!) but don't seem to be capable of guiding a simple automated turret for defense? Every single weapon seems to be necessarily hard-mounted to be inline with the forward facing of the ship, fighter-style. This has caused me to quit more space-sims in disgust than any other single factor. Simply because combat isn't my main focus for playing. Games like Terminus and Jumpgate will allow you to buy big wallowing transport or cargo ships, but then will only allow you to have fighter-style weapons to mount on it! How the hell are you supposed to fight off an attack with hard-mounted weapons when it takes your ship thirty seconds to turn a complete circle?! You are effectively defenseless. Why? When even a simple, low-powered turret might at least afford you some chance of fighting back. As well as making the prospect of a player attacking a convoy of transports a little more dangerous and exciting. No more "leading a lamb to slaughter." If anyone has an actual answer for why player turret-style weapons for non-fighter craft are almost never incuded in space-sims, I'd love to hear it. Milo? Stephen? Is there some secret about it that I'll discover half-way through my own designs?

The other thing is crewmembers. Much like flexible weapon mounts, they seem to be unnecessarily absent. They don't even have to actually do anything. Just let me feel like I've got a loyal group of compadres to help me adventure my way through space. They could even be the ones to man the turrets! I've never understood the concept of a deep-space vessel that requires no crew but still seems to need a pilot. If it doesn't need any other crew, I'm sure it doesn't need a pilot either. Maybe this is a carry over from the fighter mentality. For whatever reason, I don't like the way that crews are completely disregarded in space-sims. Most of the time, games don't even explain why a crew isn't necessary. They just leave them out.

I too would like to see more capital ship sims, but I think the majority of players prefer to play smaller, more personal craft. For me, it's about an even split. Half the time I'd like to be commanding some empire's flag cruiser, and the other half I'd like to be zipping around asteroids in the Millennium Falcon. This is another interesting, genre-splitting point. Small, piloted sim games and large bridge-commanded sim games are not only played entirely differently (at least they should be, PS), they're designed from opposite ends of perception (again, at least they should be). Perhaps yet another reason for the failure of space-sims is the ever-increasing fractured nature of the genre. The combination of these aspects was the first thing that blew me away about Starshatter.

I definitely agree that more focus on varying ship capabilities would be nice as well. What would you like to see more of, hoom.

The only problem with a Space:Total War type game is that it's no longer a space-sim, it's a strategy game. Which isn't bad, of course. Just yet another different genre.

[greengrass]

please excuse my absence; had a hard times

@Second Chance
regarding cockpits - i was thinking a few weeks ago about multifuncional displays in the cockpit, much like in todays jet fighters. stupid menus and other graphical crap should be forgotten forever!:sulk:

I'd like to see a game where anyone who takes a lone fighter against a large warship gets exactly what they deserve; a quick ride on the short bus to the cemetary.
YEAH! teach them ph33r!

hoom pointed out
The vast majority of spacesims simply have ridiculous looking, impractical ships & mostly little fighters at that.
i agree too. just think about the variety of vehicles we have today - i can't believe that after hundreds or thousands of years humanity will have lets say 5 or 8 different types of space ships (i think they are more at this moment).

but thats only ships - what about the weaponry? and other tech stuff?

one of the very important and annoying issues is Magical Things (note the upper case - rare for me), like Magical Engines working with nothing. how could this happen? i mean, even children in school learn newtonian physics and so on...
in the space you should throw something in the oposite direction to go in desired direction right? so your engines throw something, and it never ends? what a bright future! :)

this issue is directly connected with the size of the ships - if you have a fighter, built on some stone age technology, lets say it has to have a nuclear reactor which vaporizes some material and this is what makes your ship move, can i suggest that the size of this fighter should be something like the size of a nuclear submarine?

and then, what about big ships? they must be really HUGE, i mean HUGE. with HUGE main engines and thrusters. thrusters which will blow off nearby stations into the atmosphere of a nearby planet...

maybe the feeling of flying a big ship can be somehow restored (for me it never existed) if you can't control it with joystick, you should input coordinates instead. after all this is not a fighter and you can't make space acrobatics with it, and there is no need to do that in big ship.

this leads to my next (not so bright :)) idea: the software for your hardware. even small hardware like handhelds has software. why such a complicated hardware like a space ship doesn't have software? and i don't mean trade software and such, i mean operating system. i think its quite possible with todays scripting languages, found in space sims engines.

and regarding space sims as a whole - there are very few of them wich are actually fighting games, and if we take IW, X2 and FL for example - they are no more games, no more space sims, they are simulations of life in space (their developers made them that way), and even if some of them (EOC) are good as space sims, as simulations of life they are far from good.

i hope you get right my post boys and girls...my thoughts are more complicated than my english allows me to express.

[jessica00]

orbiter has MFD's
and MFD addons

the only thing orbiter lacks is combat.
it has everything else about space though, even futuristic ships with huge fusion drives that you have to manage so they dont overheat and dump half their fuel out to vent.

but there isnt much else like it.
start in florida, get into low orbit, adjust it to intercept with ISS, dock, refuel, intercept the moon, land, refuel, lift off, return to earth, aerobrake, land.. (granted, all of this takes alot more skill than you'd think at first glance)

www.orbitersim.com

[milod]

Originally posted by greengrass
one of the very important and annoying issues is Magical Things (note the upper case - rare for me), like Magical Engines working with nothing. how could this happen? i mean, even children in school learn newtonian physics and so on...

in the space you should throw something in the oposite direction to go in desired direction right? so your engines throw something, and it never ends? what a bright future!
Practically all space sims model ships with fuel gauges, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. Wing Commander claimed that all of their vehicles had some kind of technology for scooping up interstellar hydrogen atoms to power the ships' reactors. I agree that they didn't model the physics behind this concept at all, but I doubt that very many people either understand the physics involved or care that they are absent. Just because they were forced to learn Newton's laws of motion in high school physics doesn't mean that they can remember it or apply it to simulated space travel afterwards. Even people who care enough about space to play space sims often can't remember the difference between drag and gravity and what they imply for objects traveling through space.

All space sims cheat on Newton's Third Law because to do otherwise would make the game suck out loud. You would need to deal with velocity budgets, transfer orbits, and exceptionally long travel times (anywhere from days to months of simulated time).

this issue is directly connected with the size of the ships - if you have a fighter, built on some stone age technology, lets say it has to have a nuclear reactor which vaporizes some material and this is what makes your ship move, can i suggest that the size of this fighter should be something like the size of a nuclear submarine?
That's not really how theoretical fusion drives work. But again, the physics here are really irrelevant; if the ships have the technology to do all of the other magic impossible things they do (shields, energy cannon, inertial dampers), then a miniaturized fusion reactor is not such a stretch of the imagination.

maybe the feeling of flying a big ship can be somehow restored (for me it never existed) if you can't control it with joystick, you should input coordinates instead. after all this is not a fighter and you can't make space acrobatics with it, and there is no need to do that in big ship.
Perhaps you should give the Starshatter or Nexus demos a try.

[Second Chance]

I'm sure most of you are familiar with this quote:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke

While not exactly the point, keep it in the back of your mind as we progress.

I think Milo is being too specific. Let's take a step back for a second and look at the larger picture. Remember that Magical Things are what make up the basis for science fiction. We're not dealing with science fact here. The ground rules for a factual space-simulator are already in-place and immutable. The ground rules for a science-fiction space-simulator are completely up to the writer of that fictional universe.

Magical Things are only magical when their existence is not explained, either for the purpose of moving a story along or due to an irresponsible omission by the author. The specific situation determines where I agree with greengrass and where I don't. I certainly understand and empathize with where he's coming from, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Let's look at how Magical Things affect our perception of a fictional world. I'll use the two most well known and extreme examples of Magical Thing usage: Star Wars (original trilogy) and Star Trek (next gen and beyond). Here we have two diametrically opposed philosophies on the usage of Magical Things.

Star Wars revolves almost exclusively around the use of almost inexplicable Magical Things; lightsabers, inaccurate energy weapons, hyperspace, atmospheric flight physics in space, the Force, etc. None of these story elements (at the time they were used) gave even the slightest clue as to how they might work. Why? Because the writer wanted to focus on moving the story along and keeping it exciting, and not get bogged down in detail trying to explain how the story could happen. Some people would prefer to label Star Wars as fantasy, rather than science fiction, because of it's utter lack of technical detail. But Star Wars overcomes its lack of plausible science by providing a rich and detailed world for our imaginations to explore, so we love it.

Star Trek, conversely, goes to the other extreme. You can't flip a switch in Trek without a lengthy explanation as to what it's about to do. In fact, Star Trek has taken this philosophy of "No Magical Things" to such an extreme that it's even been given a name; Technobabble. Unfortunately, many of the storylines in Trek seem created expressly for the purpose of supporting the use of Technobabble and end up feeling contrived. But ironically, since the science behind most Technobabble is purely the invention of the writers anyway (with a few real science words thrown in for credibility), we still end up with Magical Things (i.e. science fiction). But the difference is, the writers made an attempt to explain them. And that completely changes our perception of whether something is a Magical Thing or not. We may end up with stories that rarely make sense, but they do always have wonderfully deep and complex technical explanations. Star Trek immerses us so deeply in a perceived level of future technology that we forget the writers' literary transgressions, and we love it.

So what have we learned from all this? Well, nothing really.:p Except that Magical Things are what make science-fiction fiction. And that it's their implementation that determines how we perceive them.

As far what approach should be taken when it comes to gaming: Since games, by their nature, must be interacted with on more than just the narrative level, I tend to lean more towards the latter philosophy in our case. Star Wars told a fantastic story, but it's lack of ground rules makes technical reproduction somewhat cumbersome.

So for games; I agree (or propose) that there should not be the perception of Magical Things. I fully expect and support the idea of Things With Fictional Functionality, as long as I can get an explanation as to how they work and how best to use them in the game. They don't have to follow any physical laws, as long as they follow logical laws (i.e. they always do the same thing). But for pure narrative; you can skip the tech-talk and just keep the story moving.

Do I bore you guys with my long posts? I'm sorry if I do, I just love writing.

Now on to the next subject!

greengrass, as far as having too few spaceships and such; I understand where you're coming from, but you've got to realize that more often than not the objects and ships visible in a game are only meant to represent a fraction of the countless types that exist in the game world (even if the devs forget to mention this in the backstory). It's a tenet of game design that you can't represent everything. And boo on the developers who fail to address this in their game narrative. And provide at least some indication that there is an entire world of variety out there, you just aren't going to see all of it in the scope of this game.

Now variety is one thing, but unless you want to pay $300 per game and have it fill your entire hard drive, what you seem to be asking is just too much for current game development capabilities.this leads to my next (not so bright ) idea: the software for your hardware. even small hardware like handhelds has software. why such a complicated hardware like a space ship doesn't have software? and i don't mean trade software and such, i mean operating system. i think its quite possible with todays scripting languages, found in space sims engines. This sounds interesting. I don't think I've ever heard a request like this. Could you explain in what ways you would like to see something like this implemented. It might be a good way to cohesively tie together many seemingly disparate game features for the player.Perhaps you should give the Starshatter or Nexus demos a try. The only problem with these is that there are no in-ship views. That's the biggest issue that's always kept me from games like these, or Starfleet Command or Dominion Wars. When I'm in a big ship, I want to be in the ship, on the bridge. Not looking at it from outside. This is another reason I liked BC3K, despite all its faults. A bridge in a capital ship sim should not need to be a feature, it should be assumed! The external view should be the feature. But again, I'm sure I'm in the minority on this point.

[hoom]

there should not be the perception of Magical Things. I fully expect and support the idea of Things With Fictional Functionality, as long as I can get an explanation as to how they work and how best to use them in the game. They don't have to follow any physical laws, as long as they follow logical laws (i.e. they always do the same thing). But for pure narrative; you can skip the tech-talk and just keep the story moving.
Thats pretty much what I was talking about.
But its not just tochnobabble, you need to use designbabble too.
Again, startrek does try to use design elements in the ships that are explained by the technobabble while starwars doesn't.

Secondary point, they do generally both manage to output well designed, good looking ships unlike most sci-fi games.
That said, starwars exists in a fictional environment of universal very high tech where the tech is taken for granted & in that kind of environment, it doesn't really matter how it works.
Same with The Culture.

[jessica00]

in starwars...they wrote the hyperdive off as "oops, we like...found this thing on some planet that was really decayed...so that means some old ass race built it..and it goes faster than light dude....lets make more and populate the galaxy with our two tone light/evil schemes!"

cause, apparantly no one in starwars knows how hyperdrives works, but can repair them very easily....

[Rurouni Storm]

Yeah, the hyperdrive thing always bugged me. They also know enough about it to duplicate the technology so it must be made from fairly easily obtainable materials.

[hoom]

I never heard that one :eek:
Who cares about the origin of the hyperdrive when its been around for 10,000 years?

[greengrass]

@milod:
That's not really how theoretical fusion drives work.
i don't mean fusion drives in my example, should have been more specific; just a nuclear reactor, and some ice which you can turn into steam and push your ship forward.

anyway i got your point :)

@Second Chance:Could you explain in what ways you would like to see something like this implemented. It might be a good way to cohesively tie together many seemingly disparate game features for the player.
lets see...
what possibilities a good spaceship OS should give:

- tweak guns/shields/sensors/engines/other hardware parameters

- connection to the space "networks" - its kinda strange that in many games you should dock to communicate (no matter that in the same time you have the technology to kill everyone/everything around and you could travel with the speed of light and so on)

- blue screen in the middle of a dogfight :)

- ability to run "software" - autopilot, trade/economic software (if the game has economy), wingmen, station and fleet management, show and analize maps or other data/logs - within IT'S environment

- better and clearer tactical/strategic view - situational awareness is really important and has really bad representation i fully agree

i know much more could be added here, but in the end everything depends on the game engine, these are just a few brainwaves in that direction.

It's a tenet of game design that you can't represent everything.
alright i can understand why is that, and in this connection
i have a question to all you guys who are into game development, something which puzzles me - the games in the last few years are more and more complicated, the volume of information they use is bigger and bigger, and still there is no (as far as i know) game which uses real database.
i guess there is a reason but... why?

[Second Chance]

About your spaceship OS: I love it! I thought all of your ideas were great and definitely worth including, even the system failure at the worst possible moment (shades of Millennium Falcon). The first, second and last of those ideas were things I had already planned on including, but I never thought about neatly wrapping them together as an OS. Nice idea. :up: (You don't mind if I steal it, do you? :cool: )

I think you might possibly be the first person who may actually like my game other than me. :D

If you think of more ideas along these lines feel free to post them. :up:

[jessica00]

deltaglider 3 add-on for orbiter has its own OS, with autopilots for getting into orbit and vertical landings and atmosphere re-entry. here's a pic of it after a landing that went a little on the stall side.
http://ahar.dyndns.org/bsod.jpg

[FireCrack]

Ya know, think the true reason space sims dont sell well, si not becasue they dont have all these things, but because they do have all those things. Think about it.

Your average FPS

Fire, mabye alt fire
Change weapons
move
jump
aim

that's about it...


now in a space sim you have all that (except jump) plus

Afterburners
Changin target in a multitude of ways
Target hostiles
target attackers
target atacker of current target
Target target in reticls
Drop countermeasures
Target subsystems or whathaveyou
locking onto targets

and many.. many.. more


And that's just controls, what about feedback, in an average FPS you'l have

Health
Armour
Ammo
Current weapon
and then some score stuff you'l check quite infrequently

A space sim has all that plus things like

Target warning indicators
MFD's
Misile lock ons
Radar
Target status
Lead reticle

And a whole bunch more.


The truth is, whiel you can just jump into an FPS, and hell, in many cases RPG's and RTS's are simpler. Space sims are just not simple and intuitive enough


my $0.02

[hoom]

Of course the side point of this discussion is that the reason we're all here is that Iwar & to a lesser extent EoC incorporate all these things we want :D

I agree with the 'too complex' proposition, however its taken too literally most of the time & devs tend to make 'less complex to manage for the player' = 'the player is an 8 yr old 7 doesn't care about feasibility'.
Its quite possible to keep complexity & feasibility while simplifying the interface/gameplay.

[Vagamus]

Ya know, what i want to see in a space mod... i'll explain em. I'm sure some of them are going to be design contradictions, but here we go...


I want a game that is free as Iwar/X2/Freespace is, first of all, so freeform construction. However, this is where the contradictions start, I would also like the ability to join a side in a story driven conflict with an opposing faction. I want some cinematics, mission briefings, the "feel" of being on a carrier or part of a fleet (both, preferably as an advancement model through the conflict, starting as fighter pilot, progressing to capital ships, and then to fleet command). I would like these progressions to be celebrated somehow cool, as in promotion ceremonies, and brifings to be motioned and acted out ala wing commander (As simplistic as it was).

A player that chooses to remain neutral in the conflict, should be able to stumble on various battles, and recieve many requests to sign up for <insert sides here>. Stumbling into battle, it would be nice if the player could help the otherside in the conflict, and recieve thanks, payment, or both. Perhaps the idea of a bounty, maybe even mercenary work as a part of the broader universe..

I would also like to witness any boarding operations that are attempted, or planetary landings. The idea of x number of marines rushing into ship A from ship B, in full FPS glory, with realistic combat. So the addition of a venerable fps system. Due to this, it would also be nice if you could join various parts of the factions, marines, navy, ect. So you could be a marine badass, and end up leading all kinds of troops, and then eventually being presented with an rts view to control the batallion under your command. It would also be fantastic to be able to control the invasion of a planet this way. No "levels", but battle until you win, but make the objectives obvious enough.

For the ground/rts/fps part of the game, it would be nice to see varieties of tanks, walkers, troops, weapons, mounted weapons, misc armor, dropships, close air support ships, ect. So basically, we could be talking about hundreds of well designed things for this game in its entirity.

Another thing i would absolutely adore to see in a game, is the ability to build, fit, refit, layout, crew, and command a ship. (Hell, i would even like to see this done more than anything else i said) It would also be nice to be able to atleast design and outfit various ground units using a simplistic system relatively like the one that was in the first heavy gear game; just drag and drop outfitting of pre-fab parts. Ability to design and refine weaponary would be a great alternative to actual "research" in a game as well. The ability to save these weapons, and redeem them in new games at a generic "cost" to the player relative to the complexity of the device, and its overall balance factor.

This means there will need to be an awareness within the game about things and their armorments. So, maybe a simplistic little bar type display or what not, maybe a bunch of them. Just like the idea of grinding a weapon in an mmo, cept it doesn't take as much time to do.

The inclusion of all these elements into one all encompassing 4x type 3d game, where you don't control everything from an outside looking screen, or hundreds of subscreens, you rule it from consoles, and delegate your commands directly to lower ranking individuals. A game that is just complex enough at the command level that you will always be good to stay on top of things, and command yourself (but to handlers) and watch the battles... but not so complex as controlling every facet of an empire at the decimal level.

So, what i really want at the core is: an FPS/RTS/Sim all in one, realistic components (it can be plasma, ect, ect, thats all understandable), realistic environments, rank increment with responsibility increase, command and control over a fleet and/or operations of a company or corporation, realism in both atmosphere and without it, ability to fight an epic ongoing war on a planet (both with the troops on the ground under someone, or commanding them), boarding operations and the ability to control captured vessels/stations/planets (to enable true piracy), superweapons are always good (nukes are ++), design and development with never before seen control over the processes, customization of everything (perhaps everyone with an editor or a cheat mode, but not normally... ie, you can't just rename Sargeant Smith to "Captain Winky" in normal game, but you can rename a ship), ability to mod the game fairly easy, realtively intuitive and easy to understand user interface, a loaded multiplayer system, and the ability to complete kick ass.

For the Multiplayer, it would be absolutely imperative to have cooperative modes, and perhaps even dedicated servers for persistent games. (With the ability to save your persistent universes) It would be great if the mp system could also specify parts of the game to use, from the FPS, to the RTS, to the Sim parts of the game, so you may fight with preset amounts of hardware over an objective.

This is all a very broad universe we're talking about, and some might say its suitable for an MMO, but i would never play it as an MMO. MMO's tend to be slow, have few real enemies, have little to do right away, and really drag on to some degree after a while. While, ultimately, i would love to see a game like this become sort of like a tradewars environment, where you're guzzling up cash, mining and turreting up your stations and all that, i wouldn't like to see sony do it, if ya know what i'm saying.


See, i know thats like 10 years of development for a good sized developer, i bet, but that game would own on so many levels, you'd pretty much be gaming gods.

However, i don't see anyone lining up to pay for the development costs for longer than two years these days, so i doubt we'll ever see such a game.

I know its like asking for everything in one game, but it can be done in simplistic enough way that it would all be fun.

[FireCrack]

A good way to fix the "too complex" problem is to use things like freespaces "Auto Target" option and Iwars "Auto Countermeasure" (make it an option)

Using freespace as an example "Auto Equilise Sheild" along with the aformentioned two could bring it down to simply 5 buttons (Primary, secondary, cycle primary, cycle secondary, afterburner) and 3 axes (Yaw Pitch Throttle) to play comfertably, not to the 100% best, but comfertably. Just as in an FPS not everyone has a different key mapped for each weapon not everyone needs a diferent key maped for each dunction in a sci-fi game. Like the constant divide of casual players who dont care about being "pro" vs competitive players.

[milod]

Hmmn. I think the fundamental problems with space sim popularity are as follows:

1. Too many degrees of freedom. Pretty much all popular 3D games have no more than four degrees of freedom (in an FPS, two for movement, plus two for aiming). Space sims have at least four, and usually six (roll + pitch + yaw + translations) for movement, and sometimes have three more degrees of freedom for viewing.

2. Too abstract for an action game, too much action for a strategy game. Too much simulation for an action game fan, not enough simulation for a simulation fan.

3. Bad pacing. Lots of parts where you are flying in a straight line (in the wrong direction) while waiting for something to happen.

4. No synergy in gameplay. The best games have a small number of discrete features that can be combined in interesting and unexpected ways (e.g. rocket-jumping). Space sims have a bunch of individual activities that don't relate to one another much at all.

[greengrass]

hmm the orbiter sim looks interesting, anyway i have to rtfm - i just can't do nothing yet ;)

@Second Chance
(You don't mind if I steal it, do you? :cool: )
you are most welcome!
regarding your game - i also think i'm gonna like it, are you planning a release soon?

@milod
ok there are reasons why space sims are unprofitable; and i believe developers/publishers are aware of that from the begining of their projects? they do market researches, right?
so they still prefer to make their sim the way they think more people would like it, and eventually end up with the same space sim fans, some of them (in the x2 case it seems most of them) quite dissapointed...so where is the logic here?

[Second Chance]

Just reiterating my feeling that space-sims fail because they focus too much on combat and "trading" being the only reasons to play. You don't need a space environment to fight with people or run an economics sim. I'd like to see developers explore some of the other reasons to be in space. Like more focus on destinations (make a big deal about the fact that we're in sci-fi space and tell us what's so special about this planet we're going to, not just "Your mission is to go to the irrelevant planet Crapulon, which is identical to every other planet in the game except that it's over here instead of over there."), and useful things to do during travel (learing about the game world and how to best work within it; i.e. news, perform fun and useful tasks like tinkering with ship performance or noting lucrative trade routes, or using your FTL communications to arrange for ship maintenance on arrival or pick up a new job on the way). And not having combat be the only way to resolve an encounter. It should be one way, just not the only way.

Here's a personal favorite: Smuggling. I can't believe this has never been included in a spce sim (that I'm aware of). I love the idea of having to learn the best routes to avoid the customs ships. And when you are detected, wondering whether the customs agents are going to pick you out of the traffic for boarding and inspection. And if they do, do you make a run for it? Or ride it out, hoping your contraband is concealed with enough skill to get away with it. Or maybe you've been detected from a long way away. Do you turn tail and escape from the system? Or do you head down to the planet at full speed, hoping to unload and be gone before customs catches up with you? There's enough material there to make an entire game just around smuggling.

And piracy and trading could stand to be spiced up a little too. If you're a pirate, you should have to watch out for the customs or other authority ships constantly on patrol (because it will probably be obvious you're a pirate ship). And should be allowed to have a more complex interaction with those you choose to pirate (boarding parties, for one). Traders, conversely, should always have to be on the lookout for pirates. As well as the hired thugs of the competition. But they should make more money for traveling dangerous trade routes. And have the ability to haggle with buyers and sellers to get the best prices, as well as be able to make deals with merchants they've come to know well (or always get screwed for the same reason). Maybe they could even be able to buy off the pirates in a sector. And enough money will not only prevent pirate attacks, but gain the pirates loyalty and protection in that area.

I'm just saying that there are so many areas other than combat that could benefit from the developers time. And make space-sims more than just a glorified arcade shooter.. . .are you planning a release soon? Lol, no. This is just something I work on as a hobby in my spare time. So don't hold your breath.

*edit*
I've just had an epiphany. I mentioned earlier about how space-sim games lacked a common set of ground rules such as those used by other sims. I now realize that this is because a "space-sim" isn't. Most space-sim games are not simulations of spacecraft operations. They take place in space, but they're not simulations of space. Not in the way that a flight-sim is a simulation of aircraft operations, or Sim City is a simulation of urban development (where the whole point of the game is just to; "fly the plane" or "build the city"). No, it seems that "space-sims" are actually more of a simulation of life in a sci-fi unverse. Almost a simplified RPG, if you will. Your time is mostly spent performing "missions" (quests), with the goal of improving your ability to perform in future missions, as well as increasing your standing within your current organization (military, trade, pirate, etc. which are analogous to thieves guilds, mercenary guilds, etc.) in order to access "better" missions. The only real difference I can see between traditional RPGs and space-sims is that your "character" and his abilities are played by you instead of by a configurable avatar whose abilities are based on sets of values which can be improved over time and affect the game. In other words, there is no persistence of character. Every time you play, or even load a saved game, you can choose to feel and act as a different person without having any impact on the game itself.

So maybe one reason space-sims fail commercially (and this is just a guess), is because they're fundamentally flawed in their construction. The developers design and build the games to one standard (simulations), when the gameplay is actually driven by another standard (RPGs). Perhaps that's why persistent world, character driven MMORPGs like Eve are the most sucessful space-sim ventures at the moment.

We've always thought of space-sims as their own genre. But maybe they're actually a sub-genre of computer RPGs. And should be treated and marketed as such.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I way off base here?

[Stone]

@ Second

I was reading through your idea of including smuggling into a game and how it's never been done. Well, it has. If you added the Evolutions mod to Freelancer then you can do just that. Depending on how you align yourself with the different factions, you can dock with the pirate bases and buy pirate ships and cargo. With that cargo (drugs or weapons or even slaves!) you won't be able to fly along Navy or Police controlled routes so you'll have to rely on the Pirate jump holes and their trade routes to their bases.

The profits are huge from this but the consequences of constantly getting harassed by the Police or Navy, not being able to dock at a lot of bases, or even having your cargo confiscated kind of offset the benifits.

Evo was/is a good mod for Freelancer. It added a ton of new ideas and ship and weapons to the game and even added in something like 20 new systems. As far as I know it's still being developed. Freelancer may not be the end all, be all of space sims, but the mod community has really taken it to new levels.

Of course it's still mouse flight but in Freelancer I thought that it worked just fine, although I still prefer joystick.

[Rurouni Storm]

Heck, Wing Commander Privateer had smuggling in it. There were a few different illegal cargoes that would attract police attention.

However, if you followed the main plot, you were eventually given a "smuggling compartment" aboard ship that could hold a small ammount of illegal goods without the military being able to find them.

[hoom]

EoC kinda has smuggling.

(generic) Space sims are more like Doom3 but in space.
First person view, same old go there kill this then that missions.
EoC & X2 (?) are more of an RPG style I guess

I'd really like to see a kind of Sim City in Space, where the idea is not war but building cool space stuff.
Especially cool would be if you could eventually build a Dyson Sphere...
The problem is avoiding making it a spreadsheet with pretty graphics :weird:

[Stone]

"spreadsheet with pretty graphics"

Yep, that's what Evo for Freelancer eventually became. One of my buddies was busy calculating profits per jump and that kind of took the fun out of the game. We all began to know the routes to take and what roles we had to play in the convoy so that we could "level up" by purchasing new ships and better weapons and things.

We were having fun at the beginning when we all had small ships and were out exploring but that changed once we decided that it would be fun to own a battleship. From that moment on it became a goal and we all had parts to play. Everybody was expected to haul cargo to make money and then contribute it to the main bank fund. Once we finally got the battleship we couldn't figure out what to do with it. That was one of the problems with Evo, you couldn't use the battleship as a mobile base for restocking and repairing. If somebody could've figured that mod out we could've probably made the game last another couple of weeks. As it is now nearly everybody has migrated to WoW and I'm playing Half-Life2 (which is pretty good).

[Second Chance]

I was reading through your idea of including smuggling into a game and how it's never been done. Well, it has. If you added the Evolutions mod to Freelancer then. . . That's cool, but it was not included in the game. So it's no different than what I'm currently doing with EoC. Which means it's a half-assed amateur attempt to add a feature that the game wasn't designed to have that's forced to work within the game's existing features. No disrespect to the mod's maker is intended, but I'm talking about a fully fleshed-out game feature, included in the game's design document, and built in from the beginning as a feature which will have considerable game code built specifically to accomodate it and integrate it with the rest of the game. It's great that someone decided to make that mod. But if it's something that everyone really likes or wanted, it should have been included by the developers from the beginning.

In fact, developers should be spending a lot more time looking at mods to see what the paying customers really want in their games. Not listening to the beta testing fanboys who think the game is being made just for them. Maybe that might bring a little commercial viability back into space-sim publishing.

Now this Privateer game looks pretty promising. Is there a game just like it, but in 3D?

[milod]

Originally posted by greengrass
@milod
ok there are reasons why space sims are unprofitable; and i believe developers/publishers are aware of that from the begining of their projects? they do market researches, right?
so they still prefer to make their sim the way they think more people would like it, and eventually end up with the same space sim fans, some of them (in the x2 case it seems most of them) quite dissapointed...so where is the logic here?
Well, I can't speak for all space sim developers. In my case, when I started work on Starshatter, space sims were still thought to be popular. And in any event it was more a labor of obsession than a matter of commercial practicality.

I think you will find that most of the companies that could afford to do the market research in the past several years either abandoned their space sims already in progress or decided not to even start. Those who went ahead with development mostly tried to keep costs so low that they would not be wrecked by poor sales. Digital Anvil / Microsoft were the notable exception to this strategy, and it doesn't seem to have worked out all that well for them.

On the other hand, the few indies that have tried to carry on with limited budget sims have been mostly crucified in popular opinion for not successfully competing with X, whether that means Freespace 2 or Doom 3 or Orbiter or what-have-you.

By the way, smuggling has been a feature of space sims at least going back to Elite, almost twenty-five years ago. I'm pretty sure that had Digital Anvil included smuggling in Freelancer, it still would have had mediocre sales.

[Second Chance]

Why is everybody talking about smuggling as if it's the only thing I said? I said it was a personal favorite of mine, but only one of many things I would like to see.

I have no space-sims that include this feature. I don't know what they were doing 25 years ago. And I'd never even looked at a computer until about 7 years ago, and I certainly wasn't playing games on it. I have no idea what went on in the apparently long and lusterous career of space-sim games. I only know that what's been available in the past few years has failed to please me in an enormous way. (I've said why I believe this in almost all of my previous posts.)

I'm not saying that incuding smuggling in a game will guarantee world-wide domination of the market. I only mentioned it as one thing I would like to see instead of the woefully inadequate gaming experience I'm currently being offered. That experience being either combat or trading, neither of which is in any way exclusively associated with space travel. There are other things to do.

[molases]

Bit tired, so not thinking too straight but on the subject of randomness and more variations on ships.
It seemed that in EoC the ships you would find in any given location where fairly random, some were more common in certain areas than others. However they all had the same basic markings and weapons.

If you look at the automotive industry there really arn't that many individual models around, one Ford Focus looks very much like another body wise, it might be a different colour and have a bigger engine (wheels, etc.) but it still looks pretty much like a Focus should.

I can't see that in the far flung future things would change all that much, companies would offer a few models of hull designed to meet a specific price point and serve a general function, then they'd offer optional extras for various things. So you'd see the Tuggy McTugTug 'Estate', the Tuggy McTugTug 'Saloon' and so on and with in each 'range' you'd get those with larger engines and/or more armour/patload capabilities (i.e. the Tuggy McTugTug 'Estate' Gunbus Ztec edition with optional roof rack).

Obviously having to do 30+ ship types from scratch for each 'company' in your universe would do most designers heads in, so we'll limit it to 4 basic types say.

Now how do you get this within a game? Well... get the game engine to do it for you.
If an area is supposed to have X number of ships split between various basic types (or groups) then you have the engine generate each ship on as it's encountered.
It knows that around a station there should be 3 tugs, but not what exactly a tug 'is', it looks up a tugs hull and sees that it has 2 ballistic hard points, 2 beam weapon hardpoints and is allowed armour type A - C, engine type D - F and so forth.
In each of the tables where the values for the various things are stored each class of ship weights the results, so it would be harder for a randomly generated station tug to be an utter gunbus than it would be for a battleship to be defencless (but it *could* happen in the case of the tug, you'd just have the none options as invalid for the battleship). Soyou could pull in to a station and find three totally unarmed workhorses busily loading/unloading freighters and doing other tug like things. On the other hand one might have been fitted with a planet buster type weapon.

As you got closer to the ships you'd be able to make out details such as weapon systems, although sensors would pick them up first and as you got closer would identify them for you.

Of course you also have ships which have a pre-defined configuration/colour scheme running around as well (Police, military, emergancy services, plot related, etc.) these are stored as overrides to the usual random generator. So all of the police crusiers, look, move the same and have identical weapon loads. It also means that if the plot calls for a freighter to be at point A, with Y cargo and an escort of Z then you can make sure it is sat there waiting for the player(s).

Sothere you have it randomness in what you see and keeping the ability to have fixed ships for when needed.

Right off to bed.

---Sarah

[AR81]

The director/writer of Riddick said that the problem wit sequels used to be that theydelivered more of the same thing.

That's why games use to fail. A game is not software, or a brand, it's entertainment. If software works fine but entertainment sucks, then it sucks. You don't buy iot because it's a piece of software, you buy it because you want to spend a nice time.

Bugs are annoying because they cut entertainment off.

Gameplay, immersion. Mechwarrior 3 is an example on how realism bring gameplay down.
I prefer those oldie graphics than the frustrating MW3 missions.

I just learned that while in MW2 I could rest on my skill, in MW3 I just needed longer range weapons and something to hide so I could win. I also discovered that if I take other path than nav points I could take enemies down unwarned.

I really would love to see a game made by Second Chance. If you ever release one, I'd like to know and I will buy your game whatever it takes. That's me.

Now let's talk about "commercially viable".
How viable was Star Wars in 1974? None, zero, nada.
How viable was it in 1978?

I discovered that scifi is a cultural product, it creates it's own market.
Star Trek can' replace Star wars, for each one is different. If you are a fan of SW, you will buy SW stuff, and if you are a fan of both, you will buy all the stuff as soon as you can. However, the problem of product availability seems a problem. If you don't buy today, tomorrow it might not be available, so you can't buy.

So there is a supply gap.

How viable is to sell Star Wars stuff?
How viable was Star Control II, or Freespace, Starsiege?
People say that scifi is a niche. They don't know about history.

Games are cultural products and they develop a culture. Cultures don't disappear liek a spark. Changing a culture takes years in a company. Why is that marketing reaks don't understand that?

[molases]

Originally posted by AR81
The director/writer of Riddick said that the problem wit sequels used to be that theydelivered more of the same thing.
Which is what I liked abouit Pitch Black and 'The Chronicles Of' they were two seperate films. Both pretty much formula but enjoyable eye candy in their own rights, but with characters in common.


That's why games use to fail. A game is not software, or a brand, it's entertainment. If software works fine but entertainment sucks, then it sucks. You don't buy iot because it's a piece of software, you buy it because you want to spend a nice time.
Bugs are annoying because they cut entertainment off.
I agree, these days computer games are mainstream entertainment for the most part and entertainment value has always been the main reason for buying a game, not only the game itself but in days of old the experience of flicking through the huge technical manual (Microprose, etc.) the plastic trinkets (Ultima, etc)... shame those days aregone.... kind of miss the big ass boxed games. However...

Yes a computer game is a brand and as such fans show loyalty to that brand. How many people go out and buy the new Madden game? Even through it's only really a few tweaks and changing the player names from last year... the answer millions. Look at us here, we're showing a loyalty to the 'Independance War' brand (even though it's technically dead).
As with things like Nike, Coke-Cola and other more main stream brands a popular series of computer games from a large publishing house commands a certain presence on the shelves. Face facts Valve could spit in a box, slap Half-Life 3 on it and the thing would fly off the shelves right now. Just as you could put together a 300 page blank book and stick "Harry Potter" on it and the same would happen.
To ignore or under estimate brand loyalty; be it to a range of games, a series of books or a hardware manu' is a big mistake IMHO.

Unfortunatley, computer games ARE software and pretty complex peices to boot. No real way to side step or outright avoid the problems associated with a large software project... BSOD anyone?

Consoles do make life easier for developers, it's a fixed hardware platform that you can get to know like the back of your hand; but that is still no garantee that the finished article won't have a bug in it and that this bug won't manifest itself when very specific things happen (using Y brand memory card, with X brand controller and attempting a flying kick, then hitting save.... you get the idea).

PC's on the other hand are a perpetually moving target, ner version s of Windows, DirectX API's, sound cards, video cards... more and more raw processing power. So they're quite a challenge to fully debug... but on the other hand PC's have the advantage they're easier to patch should a massive bug slip past QA testing as you have the HDD where the game resides and multiple distribution channels to deploy the patch through (magazines, websites, etc.).


MechWarrior stuff

Never played MW2 much, but I do agree MW3 was absolutley boring as you say, load up on long range lasers and fire them all at once at the enemies legs... instant kill. That little brainless tactic took me all the way through the game.
I wouldn't say MW3 was the more 'realistic' game though. Better graphcis than MW2 yes but that doesn't make it more realistic.
Other than that can't comment.

[AR81]

If you want a free roaming game, try Hardwar.
It's old but interesting.

A good free roaming game with good economy: X Beyond the frontier. It didn't hit the market because THQ did a poor marketing job. I loved that game.

Space-sims that don't sell? Freespace, Starsiege, Star Wars...

The brand thing... Star Control I and II were good, but as Star Control III came, it went downhill to a massive financial fiasco. That game was crap, boring, just like MW3 was to MW2.

Brand was not enough. It takes entertainment. You can't replace Spielberg, I just wonder why Accolade didn't use the original team of Star Control II to make the sequel. May be they think that artists are replaceable, and building good entertainment is an art.

It's nopt about software, it's about entertainment, remember?

Games are not a payroll database app. They are not a BMP to JPG app. Such apps don't need to entertain, they just need to work. But gaming companies don't seem to see the difference between software and entertainment.

Microsoft grew up thanks to games, now they seem to be a moving target for developers, so you may expect PCs to be a typewriter with some Palm features for an office only.

If games move to Linux, it's a good bet that Linux will replace Microsoft. That's the power of games.

Want a simple idea for a non combat space sim?
How about a space shuttle sim?
Variety of missions...
Time spent, things to do...

Activision already made one for Atari 2600.
I never could see anything similar.

Once shuttles were simulated, how about colonizing worlds?
No combat, too much to think, to do.

And eventually you will get conflict to space, a space station hijacked like the Russian theater, space rescue missions, etc...

What will happen when someone can buy an old shuttle and put a big ammo cannon on top? You have a pirate, no energy shields, no beam weapons, limited fuel.

You don't need to imagine a whole universe. Why not starting a sim today with today's technologies?

Regarding trading of software in the sim, you should play Hardwar. There you used to upgrade your software and it added functions to your ship's computer.

I guess Hardwar became abandonware some time ago.

[Dash_Merc]

I must say, the BEST space game I have EVER played is any of the games in the Escape Velocity series by Ambrosia SW (http://www.ambrosiasw.com).

Free-roaming play, upgradeable ships, multiple races and believable ships/technology.

Sadly, not 3D, and no multiplayer, but otherwise, an awesome game.

Attempts have been made at a multiplayer Escape Velocity, as well as at a 3D version, all of which have pretty much failed, due to lack of support. Everyone in the EV community wants it, but everyone also thinks that it wouldn't be Escape Velocity if:
1.) it was 3D
or
2.) it was multiplayer

Besides playing the normal game, it's SUPER EASY to mod, and therefore, it has hundreds of different mods for it.

Anyone else like it?

[jessica00]

dash, yeah, it was fun up till the point i had my own fleet of ships with uber-class weapons that decimated just about anything

[Dash_Merc]

Oh, yeah...I forgot about that.

But that's why there are so many mods. Once you uber beat the game, then you load a new mod. Or, you can make your own, and make the game harder. It's up to the player to fix the "too-easy-ness" of the game. There's also that wonderful checkbox you see when creating a character, called "Strict play," which makes it so that once you die, you're dead. Makes it much more interesting. My dad was so good at the original version of EV, that he managed to beat it with Strict play. Then he went and got himself killed trying to take over Earth. lol.

[Second Chance]

Very well said Dash_Merc. My personal belief is that games get boring because the player has nothing to drive him on. The reason everyone manages to amass uber-everythings is because, as a player, they gain and gain and never lose anything along the way as simply part of life.

How about massive maintenance costs for those giant fleets? Along with feeding and paying the massive crews? To give the player a reason he needs to conquer the next enemy. To continue to be able to pay for his ever expanding fleet.

Or maintenance on a single ship? Along with taxes, fuel, registration, food, room and board, landing fees, docking fees and all the other bills that should continually drain a players resources. The player will have to excell, not just to advance to the uber-levels, but to survive. After all, what drives us to continue to work and go to school? The fact that we'd like to keep eating and have a bed to sleep in.

In life, you're either advancing, or falling behind. In most games, if you do nothing, you lose nothing. There's never any cost to keep what you already have. I feel sim and strategy games should emulate the setbacks of life to drive the player on.

The same goes for virtually every other game type more complex than an arcade game.

Why is every first ship in a game free? Start the player off with a mountain of debt. He'll like that first ship a lot more when he's finally paid it off and it's finally really his. And he'll be a lot more cautious with it, and respectful of it, while he still owes on it.

And I'm all for "Strict Play". What the hell is all this crap about dying, but you have insurance or whatever, and you come right back without really losing anything. If you die, you should have to start over with a new life. Game over. How can people complain about boredom when they play games that they can't possibly lose. All this insurance and cloning bank crap was created for the whiney babies who couldn't stand to be told, "I'm sorry, you lose." And they always yell, "That's not fair!" So then "fair" becomes that they can come back to life everytime and not lose anything because just because they screwed up.

I'll bet all those people complaining about how they're bored with their current game because they've defeated everything with their uber-armada would get a lot more life (and challenge) out of the game if they had to constantly replenish their continuously diminishing resources while advancing.

That's what a dynamic world really is.

Well, I could go on and on, but, you get the point.

[Rurouni Storm]

Originally posted by Second Chance
Why is every first ship in a game free? Start the player off with a mountain of debt. He'll like that first ship a lot more when he's finally paid it off and it's finally really his. And he'll be a lot more cautious with it, and respectful of it, while he still owes on it.

I forget what game, but I do remember playing a game where your starting ship and funds were actually a loan.

Also, in EV Nova death is permanent unless you reload a saved game. You CAN survive your ship being destroyed if you have an escape pod or hanger bay, but then you have to escape the combat zone in a much, much weaker vessel.

[AR81]

I have noticed that there are 2 types of players:
1.Those who want challenge
2.Those who want entertainment

Independence War and attlezone had steep learning curves which made agreat challenge, but they also brough t high levels of frustration.

If you play Jane's sims, and you can't withstand frustration you better don't play such games.

I just use games as stress relief, so the less I need is stress.

I loved Star Control, for it was more like first person RPG. The dogfight was just amusing (a bit arcade but entertaining), and the storyline was involving.

Later, as I published my comic, I learned that story is everything. No eye candy arts or graphics can replace storyline.

I also recall a DOS game called Carrier Command. It was a 3D game that used about 100Kb of space and it simulated a carrier equipped with 4 hovercraft vehicles and 4 planes, you coudl equip them using drag and drop and you had very good awareness as there were several cameras, and you managed suppliy network, colonizing of island and waypooints for attack. You could manually drive planes or hover vehicles... I just wonder how they did it with only 100Kb.

[Red_Hex]

Originally posted by Second Chance
In life, you're either advancing, or falling behindi wouldnt say the lifelong bachelor accountant was advancing

Originally posted by Second Chance
the hell is all this crap about dying... you die, you should have to start over with a new life... this insurance and cloning bank crap was created for the whiney babies who couldn't stand to be told, "I'm sorry, you lose"... they can come back to life everytime and not lose anything because they screwed upnoone avoids losing at some point in a game, unless they play it through a load of times. imagine playing iwar2 through until the last mission, defending the base from the alien things, and getting eaten by one because you blundered into it, since you couldnt see the contact in the mist and noone told you that would be a problem. youd be justifiably pissed off. you wouldnt really want to play again. or are you talking about mmogs? you know, those games you invest large sums of cash and time every month to play, that if what youd spent 150 quid and half your leisure time over the last year building was destroyed in an instant because you took on a fight you hadnt anticipated? frankly, id sue, though i wouldnt be doing it in the first place.

[Dash_Merc]

Originally posted by Rurouni Storm
Also, in EV Nova death is permanent unless you reload a saved game. You CAN survive your ship being destroyed if you have an escape pod or hanger bay, but then you have to escape the combat zone in a much, much weaker vessel.

Actually, in EV Nova, death is exactly the same as in the older games. When you die, you HAVE to go and reload the save. If you check the strict play box, then when you try and load the last saved pilot file, it tells you that you can't, because you're DEAD.

If you're playing with strict play on, either get an escape pod, or right before your shields and armor die, press escape, then load the file again.

If you're playing without strict play on, NEVER get an escape pod. It's a waste of space, time, and money. Then, when you die, you'll have to go and buy everything all over again. That's just an unnecessary pain in the ass.

Does that make sense?

I mean, why would the game company reload your pilot file automatically? That wouldn't really give you any incentive to not die, now would it? They make you do a little work.

[Second Chance]

No eye candy arts or graphics can replace storyline. Amen, brother. Even if the story is just to set the tone for the game environment.

RedHex: I don't understand your accountant reference. Other than that, I'm afraid I just don't agree with you at all. I don't care what killed me if it was my fault. There's a difference between me screwing up, and bad game design that causes instant-death traps that the player can't avoid at all. Your EoC example sounds like it would be my fault for being unprepared. Am I supposed to get mad because "someone else didn't tell me it was there and going to be a problem"? That sounds like a perfectly acceptable, albeit unfortunate, way to lose to me. I would be angry I lost; but not at the game. I didn't play EoC all the way through, so I don't know what the aliens do to you. If they're something that kill you instantly, with no chance of escape; well then, that's bad game design. Yes, I would be pissed. But, if you're saying that it's "fair" that I can slaughter my way through 100 aliens, but I have a caniption fit if one of them kills me; well then. . . What's the definition of fair again?

For the mmorpg. . .. . . what if what you'd spent 150 quid and half your leisure time over the last year building was destroyed in an instant because you took on a fight you hadnt anticipated? frankly, id sue. . . Why? Basically what you're saying completely supports what I said in my last post. Why is it so unfair for you to lose anything? What if I'd spent 150 million and ten years building up a real business, and it was all destroyed in an instant because I did something monumentally stupid? Should I shout to the world how "unfair" it is and refuse to accept it, and blame everybody else but me? Should I demand that the world get together and replace everything I lost? Because I shouldn't have to do any more work than anyone else. How dare anyone make me lose my things, just because I screwed up. Or what if my company's product killed somebody, and they sued the bejesus out of me. Or it was hit by a natural disaster. Or any of a million other things that could happen. That's life. You deal with it and move on. And here we're talking about real things. Things with actual value. Nothing you achieve in a computer game will ever be more than some imaginary numbers in a machine. Why is it sooo important that you never lose any of it? Why is it such an unforgivable sin to simply start over? Both of your examples place far too much value on things that stem purely from laziness and greed.

And you shouldn't equate the amount of money you've spent to the level of achievement you've reached. If you're playing an online game, you're spending that money whether you achieve anything or not.

Maybe it's today's generation, but what is achievement without any risk of loss? Like Dash_Merc said, there's no incentive not to die. Not when every time you do, you come back at full strength and without any loss of resources. It seems to me that gamers today demand the ability to brag about all their "amazing achievements" and "levels" and whatever, but don't want to have to actually work to get those achievements. They much prefer to have them handed to them by the game developers. By spending volumes of time dying and respawning, with no real loss whatsoever, until they have more than everyone else. Isn't that the very reason why long-term gamers dominate the online game worlds? Why do you think the higher level gamers have mountains of money to throw at newbies? They already own everything, have no costs to their continued exsistence and they never lose it by dying.

Everyone ask yourself this: Who would you respect more as a gamer? The guy who reached 200th level by dying 10 times in every fight, only to instantly come back at full strength and finish off his opponent who has no way of regenerating himself? Or the guy who reached 20th level by dying many times in the beginning, and had to start over again from scratch every time, until he became skilled enough to pick his fights wisely, capitalize on his strengths and his opponenets weaknesses, and start winning due to his own actions.

Today it's always, "Wah, I have no skill. And I'm not willing to work to gain any. So I should never have to worry about dying, or losing anything, or actually working, in order to win. And we'll call that "fair" from now on."

These "insurance protections" and "cloning banks" and "respawning points", in the old days they called those "cheats". From the ancient word cheating, meaning to win by circumventing the rules.

Nowadays, "cheating" to "win" is perfectly acceptable. (After all, what are these so-called "buffs" if not temporary in-game cheats designed to make you more capable than you've earned the right to be?) Games circumvent the rules of life and reality by removing any potential obstacles that could cause the player to lose; like dying, or spending money simply to continue exsisting in the gameworld, raising the possibility of running out. That's why games become boring. There's no challenge when the only obstacle to success is time. As long as you can forever come back and your opponent can't, you will always win, eventually. Like Dash_Merc said, it's the players responsibility. But what good is it if the player won't take responsibility for his own actions, good or bad?

[Red_Hex]

so, second, your ideal game would be... sim-life. you come home from a trying day at work and notice your exhaust is hanging off. your lawn needs mowing. you read your bills and just remember how great it will be to finally own your own house. after venting your sexual frustration with the help of some choice erotica, or having the kids argument with your partner again, and examining that distressing lump on your left nut, you settle down to finally relax and forget it all by playing...a simulation of the very same trials and labours youve just dealt with. what happens in multiplayer? some guy murders you and your family (hes a fan of pvp) and you can never play again?

people play games to have fun, second, to escape real life. they dont want them to exert the same pressures. its entertainment. people want to fly and shoot stuff and look at scenery and save princesses, and not die.

[jessica00]

Originally posted by Rurouni Storm
I forget what game, but I do remember playing a game where your starting ship and funds were actually a loan.

Also, in EV Nova death is permanent unless you reload a saved game. You CAN survive your ship being destroyed if you have an escape pod or hanger bay, but then you have to escape the combat zone in a much, much weaker vessel.

..hardwar?

[Second Chance]

LOL! :haha: That was a pretty vivid description. I hope that's not your life.

Maybe a better way to look at it would be to compare it to movies. Movies are fun. I love movies. But I am not entertained by movies with plot devices that don't make any sense. Or are completely counter to any kind of logic. The most annoying movie type in the world to me is one where the heroes win because of a rediculous, idiotic, unexplained (and unexplainable) plot device.

I tried to think of a good example. But since I generally avoid movies like this, I couldn't. If anybody knows what I'm talking about, maybe they could give one.

I also don't play games to escape real-life. And I don't know anyone who does. I play them to compliment real-life, because they amuse and entertain me in new ways. And with luck, will also challenge my skills and abilities in a way different from real-life. I simply prefer a real challenge. Rather than buffing and respawning my way to victory.

[jessica00]

Originally posted by Second Chance
LOL! :haha: That was a pretty vivid description. I hope that's not your life.

Maybe a better way to look at it would be to compare it to movies. Movies are fun. I love movies. But I am not entertained by movies with plot devices that don't make any sense. Or are completely counter to any kind of logic. The most annoying movie type in the world to me is one where the heroes win because of a rediculous, idiotic, unexplained (and unexplainable) plot device.

I tried to think of a good example. But since I generally avoid movies like this, I couldn't. If anybody knows what I'm talking about, maybe they could give one.

torque.

plot device being superhuman reflexes and reaction time (some scene with 2 ubercrotchrockets going through a dense city at rushhour, at like 800 mph.

[Red_Hex]

the end of jurassic park 3, where the helpless people are hunted onto the beach by the raptors, and back right into a regiment of marines that magically appeared.

[Rurouni Storm]

Originally posted by jessica00
..hardwar?

Never played hardwar though I do actually own the game.

[AR81]

I use games as "anti-stress", so too much challenge may not work. I don't think it is escaping reality. I call it "taking a short vacation".

Any piece of entertainment is a short vacation in one way or another. And there are several types of entertainment. Some people like challenge, other people with no need to develop skills but being entertained, may look for somethng different.

---------------

Hardwar is good but graphics are a bit oldie.
X Beyond the frontier is like Hardwar, but it is better, however, the open ended element made the plot not to have a proper end. However, it is better than Hardwar in some ways.

[WX_Peregrin]

For me, games are like a snack...Im never in the mood for one particular type at all times. Sometimes I like a little MMO (a la EVE), sometimes a little action (a la HL2), and sometimes a little of both (a la NWN). As far as sims go...I like complexity and realism, but I also can go for 'cool' factor.

To sum it up, I love HL2DM and UT2k4 online once in a while, but I also like to take some runs in IL-2 Sturmovik. IW2 has (for me at least) blended cool factor and a 'sim' feel almost seamlessly. Maybe it's not perfect in every way possible, but it's the closest any space sim has gotten IMO.

It isnt about the perfect game for me, it's having a nice nutritious balance of 'good' games, since I feed off of variety. I keep myself from becoming a jaded gamer by rotating the types of games I play once in a while and making sure I try something new every so often.

[Second Chance]

That's probably an excellent idea, WX. With "balance" being the key word. I've become really bored with all of my installed game types lately and started looking through my mountain of game CDs for something else interesting to play. Sadly, every time I do I end up saying, "But these are all exactly like the ones I'm playing now." Then I get frustrated at my lack of diversity, and go watch television.

Maybe if I ocassionally tried a new game because it was different from what I always buy, I might have something to entertain me now.

Not that I ever buy "new" games, mind you. I'll stick with the bargain bin. I just won't support $40 to $60 for a game. Movies cost several times more than a game does to make, and they only cost $20 max when new.

[Second Chance]

You know, after my last post I was just sitting here wondering why I'm always so disappointed with most games. And I think I know one of the reasons. Games today seem to lack the creativity and sense of humor about themselves they once had.

Out of desperation, I started playing an old DOS game called Innocent Until Caught. Man did I laugh and enjoy myself silly. And I didn't start to nitpick about what was "wrong" with the game; crappy graphics, bad sound, no AI, etc. I was to busy enjoying myself. And it didn't need a fully 3D rendered, bump-mapped environment with dynamic lighting and 64 meg textures to tell a good story. The immersion factor was there. Not because of massive hardware requirements or convincing AI, but because of really good story writing and dialog choices. Maybe all this realism in games today has only served to increased our criticism of them when we find something "wrong".

Then I started playing an old Space Quest title, Space Quest 6: Roger Wilco in the Spinal Frontier. I almost peed myself laughing. The main voice talent for that game was radio announcer Gary Owens. Anybody old enough to remember him from the 60's variety show Laugh-In will know why I couldn't help but enjoy myself.

And these games were nothing special at the time, just another cheap title on the shelf. Why don't we see this kind of creativity and ability to "work with what you've got" anymore. Maybe games are just over-produced these days, with monster publishers and gigantic dev teams spending millions of dollars on technology, all stiving to make the next blockbuster product.

Maybe in the adrenaline rush of modern graphics cards and big money, we've forgotten why we play games.

[Hot4Darmat]

I know they're older titles, but I just finished playing No One Lives Forever, and NOLF2. I enjoyed them immensely, and not only consider them very well done, solid games, but I laughed my ass off throughout the games. I agree that just plain 'enjoyment' is often something left out of game design. I like a title that doesn't take itself, or its genre too seriously. Tachyon was like this too, which was fun.

[Nightwatch]

Thats a good point. I still think my ultimate gaming experiance was a little game called Battlezone. Zooming around in your tank and fighting cheezy cartoon ruskies was just so.. fun! and when you got to play with the russian units the over the top fake russian accents had me laughing. And conversly it also had one of the scariest missions I have ever seen in any strategy game. . I just got so into it. And that came out in the mid 90's. Damn I have the urge to load it up again.

Gaming lately has just focused on bang and not enough oomph. The most recent game I enjoyed on that level was a game called Soul Reaver 2, and that was out about 3 or 4 years ago. If you see it on budjet get it. The story is very very good, and the voice acting first class. Pity legace of Kain :defiance (the sequel) was let down by an awful control system, but anyway..

[Second Chance]

It's almost like the game industry is trying to promote this "extreme" image to the youth culture that says, "If you don't treat games more seriously than real life, then you're just not a real gamer."

They emphasize competition, efficiency and the technical aspects of playing, rather than the fun bit. While simultaneously downplaying the use of imagination to enjoy the game. A good example of this, I think, is in these rediculous standardized terms for online gaming. Loot, mobs, quest terminal, leveling, etc. They refer to these terms in-game for crying out loud! How are you supposed to imagine that you're a dashing hero in a fantastic setting when you're told to level-up by going to the quest terminal to get a fed-ex mission and then loot some mobs on the way back. And then run the level treadmill of rat-bashing.

Is this fun? Refering to the game in these terms, while playing the game? And loading up on so much buffing and spell (or whatever) equipment before the "mission" that the group more resembles a commando team than a band of adventurers. Have modern games so removed the need for imagination that no one even bothers trying to use it anymore?

This is definitely the core of my disappointment with online games, and the reason why I refuse to play them. That, and text-speak. It totally destroys the feeling of being in the game world.

[WX_Peregrin]

EVE Online I just like because it's different. I still enjoy playing Neverwinter Nights online though...since I dont have to pay a monthly fee for it, and there are 'roleplaying' servers where people will get together and actually act out their parts (ie no 'LOLZ' but 'Hail sir, how are ye today' type stuff). The players in the NWN community really contribute to the fun.

Still, I am kind of jaded towards PC games in one way...I still play tabletop RPGs. No PC game will ever match the sheer fun or excitement of sitting around a table with your best buds and playing through a world that runs solely on 'imagining' things instead of the newest pixel shaders.

The funny thing is, sometimes I find the old pixelated games that require more imagination are more exciting than the newest graphics (Wolf3d always had me jumping, and Mechwarrior 2 was a blast all the way through).

I dont think it's a matter of games taking themselves too seriously, I think it's the fact that when you are a 'gamer' and play so many games, you've already seen the best of the best, but then you see other games that do the same exact thing. And when you've stuck with a franchise long enough to see its downfall, it really is a sad thing (Mechwarrior going downhill from 3 on and turning into Mechassault).

Ive just seen so much done so well, that when something does something similar, it's like riding the same rollercoaster. You already know when to expect the falls, the turns, and it's less exciting the 20th time.

[AR81]

Star Control II was just great. It was not only funny, but also epic. It challenged your imagination.

MW2 was great too. MW3 wasn't. may be Microsoft tried too much eye-candy and realism so it became more of a stop-and-fire-long-range-weapons, instead of an exciting thing.

I found that when mech was walking it was harder to aim, so I just stopped and fired. i tried to find something to hide, so I'd come out and fire and then hide again. The horrible AI in MW3 only made things very easy.

Activision's MW2 was just great. It was really a matter of skill, but it had some fun because Stop-and-fire as in MW3 isn't exactly exciting.

With MW2 I felt like in an alien world and the stunning music of Yeehun Hwang is just amazing. Hwang also composed the music of Battlezone.

Fun is not formulaic, entertainment isn't either. Imagine you are a school teacher, and while you use the latest gadgets for education, you are really boring... what do you think it could happen?

A school teacher isn't just a teacher, he is an entertainer. Entertainment is a matter of talent.

David Twohy, the writer and director of Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick said that the mistake many movie makers did was to deliver more of the same. So every Riddick thingy brought a different experience.

Gaming companies should learn from him.

I'd love to see a game developed by Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III (the makers of Star Control II). They proved to be very talented. Their game sold very well.

Talent and brand is not the same as Star Control franchise proved. Once the talent is gone, franchise goes down.

In 1995, DC Comics increased sales dramatically when Mike Deodato Jr and William Messner-Loebs teamed up for Wonder Woman. Later, as they departed, sales went down again. That's the effect of talent.

One interesting thing about comics is that eye-candy arts will cause reader to buy at most 3 issues, but it is involving storyline what causes the reader to stay and buy more. My guess is that it may work for games too.

As Wonder Woman went down, does it mean that there is no more market for Wonder Woman? Or is it that lack of talent is bringing low sales?

My bet is that a cheap game capable of delivering talent will make lots of money. Talent is like a gold mine no one is taking seriously. My bet is that if you create your own company and workwith talented people focused on a vision, you'll achieve an outstanding product. The remaining part is marketing, in which a good job must be done, by making it easy to buy.

[Parias]

I thought Mechwarrior 3 was the best of the series, actually - it sure beat the hell out of that trash they released with Mechwarrior 4 (which they half-assed tried to save with Mech4: Mercs, and might have succeeded with if they had actually made it as good as the original MW2:Mercs). Maybe I place way too much into a detailed cockpit view, good voice acting / dialogue, and a general kick-ass "mech" feeling, but I thought that Mechwarrior 3 was the only game in the series that properly managed to capture the true feeling of piloting a gigantic walking tin can. The cockpit feeling was done perfectly, the damage effects incredibly realistic for it's time (especially the brutal effect of seeing a Mech's arm or leg get blown off, leaving only a jumble of sparks and loose hanging wires), and the fact that I had a force feedback joystick made the experience about fifty times better. My enjoyment of Mechwarrior 3 wasn't so much due to the core gameplay itself as it was the raw feeling of actually piloting a Mech, which made the game feel insanely immersive.

I still can't believe they did away with all that for Mechwarrior 4 - they basically took everything I loved about Mech3 and utterly destroyed it, and I don't understand why. Thank god Steel Battalion came out, or I'd have gone insane looking for a modern Mech sim that captured the immersion feeling as good as Mechwarrior 3 did.

[hoom]

I've never been much of a Mechwarrior fan but I did enjoy MW4.
A thing that irked me greatly with MW3 (my flatmate had it) was that the only real difference between all the mechs was the weight class.

You know, they do all this blurb about the strengths & weaknesses of a given 'stock' mech & then, first thing you do when you get it is strip it bare & turn it into the same loadout you always use for that weight of mech.
If the mechs are that reconfigurable, there should be no such thing as a 'stock' mech & blurbs should concentrate merely on the aesthetic value of a given chassis.

MW4s weapon type slots meant that for the most part a gun mech was always a gun mech & a missile mech always a missile mech.
They even managed to keep a fair bit of variability in it so you could shoe horn eg a laser mech out of a Vulture.

OK, so the use of Clan omnimech tech means that MW3s system is technically correct but MW4s system feels much more believable & interesting to me.

[WX_Peregrin]

IMO MW2Mercs was the best. Mech3 didnt feel like 'mechwarrior' to me after playing 1 & 2, though it was an awesome game. I nitpick it mainly for things like no advanced imaging (night vision...especially when it actually contains underground maps) and some questionable 'uber' configs that should have been restricted in some way. It may have been the best 'sim' out of all of them, but as far as a Mechwarrior 'feel' goes I like MW2mercs the best.

I loved MW4 too, but it wasnt as good as MW2 or MW2mercs. Sure it may not have been a sim, but then again, Battletech's specs are closely related to ancient WW2 tabletop games...so...yeah ;).

Though...if MW4 had a better story/dialogue, it could have been a LOT more interesting. MW4mercs is my favorite out of the '4' series.

Thankfully Mektek is going to start on their first 'commercial' project after the next Mechpak (3). It wont be based on BT or Mech though (copyrights and all). Im hoping they make a good mecha simulation...:D.

[AR81]

The feeling of "piloting a real mech" in MW3 brought down the need of skill. Mechs were sluggish in MW3 and it was not so easy to evade incoming fire, so I was forced to change tactics.

The worst tactic is to engage directly in MW3. So you just load as much long range energy or missiles as you can, and you try to put as many heat sinks.

I just omitted jump jets and ammo cannons.

That way I won MW3 easily. Mine became a long range artillery mech.

Engaging wasn't that funny, even if you engaged the enemy directly. Torso twist was very slow in MW3, and it jeopardized gameplay. Jump jets were virtually useless.

I ended up using LRM5 and LLAS. PPCs weren't as good as in MW2, so I never used them too much. I didn't like how PPCs behave in MW3. I prefer the plasma ball as in MW2. It gives me the idea of having such ball melting the armor.

So if you discard all those useless things, the game turns into a boring thing.

MW3 might have the "immersive cockpit realism" but not "immersive gameplay". So that's why I prefer MW2, even with such primitive graphics.

[Rurouni Storm]

Originally posted by Second Chance
Then I started playing an old Space Quest title, Space Quest 6: Roger Wilco in the Spinal Frontier. I almost peed myself laughing. The main voice talent for that game was radio announcer Gary Owens. Anybody old enough to remember him from the 60's variety show Laugh-In will know why I couldn't help but enjoy myself.
.

Really? I've been replaying parts 3 to 5 in order. 3,4 and 5 were the best parts of the series, though 6 is quite good as well.

[hoom]

you just load as much long range energy or missiles as you can, and you try to put as many heat sinks.
I just omitted jump jets and ammo cannons.
That way I won MW3 easily. Mine became a long range artillery mech.
Yep, thats what my flatmate did too.
My fav 2 mechs in MW4 are medium mechs.
The Uziel is one: Load it up with a fast engine and 2 LBX 10s then go heavy mech raiding.
Fantastic for MP when everyones in big slowies.
Just run rings round em repeatedly popping em in the face point blank.
There was another similar size chassis, I forget the name, which I managed to shoehorn 2 gauss cannons into.
Both powerful at range & a killer up close :)

[luuuuki]

I won MW3 but didn't like it very much, all mentioned b4 - repetitiveness of the mechfights etc..
But I'd like to play the full MW2 or MW2Mercs, I only got my hands on the demos :( don't you know where I could find them? They aren't even at the bazaars..

My first sim that just rocked was EF2000, all the buttons and stuff got me interested :p although the dogfights were more like "push everything in the right order and maybe you hit him" style. Now I prefer the action sims like was the first Freespace or Freelancer and now I'm at the start of the 1st chapter in I-war, kinda reminds me of EF2000 :D with exciting dogfights.

And, this thread being about disapointments, I've got a recent one: I'm a big RTS fan (moderate player) and I have been waiting for Perimeter soo long.. and ended in installing and uninstalling the game :cry: (the time between is not worth mentioning). I guess although I wanted something new, not AS new as was Perimeter. Thank heavens that Down of War emerged.. Now I'm waiting for the Dragonshard (first beta, then maybe release..) and desperatly hope not to be disapointed again. Ya hear me Atari?

[AR81]

Originally posted by luuuuki
I won MW3 but didn't like it very much, all mentioned b4 - repetitiveness of the mechfights etc..
But I'd like to play the full MW2 or MW2Mercs, I only got my hands on the demos :( don't you know where I could find them? They aren't even at the bazaars..

I used to do search at Amazon.com from time to time for some titles. MW2 series run fine on a P233 or similar. In a P4 it has some odd bugs.

MW3 was repetitive, I agree. I prefer Earthsiege 2 or Starsiege instead of MW3. But definitely MW2 rocks over al of them!!

Originally posted by luuuuki
My first sim that just rocked was EF2000, all the buttons and stuff got me interested :p although the dogfights were more like "push everything in the right order and maybe you hit him" style. Now I prefer the action sims like was the first Freespace or Freelancer and now I'm at the start of the 1st chapter in I-war, kinda reminds me of EF2000 :D with exciting dogfights.

First exciting sim I played was Chuck Yeager Air Combat for DOS. By the time I bought EF2000, it was just state of the art graphics (and in some way still it is). But I it failed to provide awareness. I just prefer Advanced Tactical Fighters (ATF Gold) by Jane's because you had better awareness, not very good graphics, but good gameplay and LOTS of planes.

Later I got USAF and I still enjoy it. It's a shame it has a bug on XP that EA never fixed.

Originally posted by luuuuki
And, this thread being about disapointments, I've got a recent one: I'm a big RTS fan (moderate player) and I have been waiting for Perimeter soo long.. and ended in installing and uninstalling the game :cry: (the time between is not worth mentioning). I guess although I wanted something new, not AS new as was Perimeter. Thank heavens that Down of War emerged.. Now I'm waiting for the Dragonshard (first beta, then maybe release..) and desperatly hope not to be disapointed again. Ya hear me Atari?

I got XIII and I like it. Not really innovative as FPS but storyline is great. Apparently it is based on a french comic.

[Second Chance]

I prefer Earthsiege 2 or Starsiege instead of MW3Add Cyberstorm2 to complete the Sierra trilogy (sort of). My old favs. :up: Cyberstorm2 even came with 2 copies of the game disc just so you could install it on a friend's computer. Now that's what I call; taking care of the customer = anti-disappointment! :up:

Anyway, here's some food for thought. Why does everyone talk about Elite as if it's some kind of long lost ancient alien technology that can never be recovered? If Elite was so great, and the ultimate standard to which all other space-sims aspire, why doesn't someone bring Elite itself into 3D? Literally. Take the original code and implement it through a modern 3D rendering engine. Just simply adding whatever additional artwork was necessary to flesh it out in full 3D. Wouldn't that be the guaranteed, best-selling space-sim ever produced?

I've never played the original Elite. So for all I know, it is long lost ancient alien technology that can never be recovered. But, unless there's some kind of crazy legal voodoo (like with I-War), I don't understand why this hasn't already been done.

Wouldn't it be guaranteed to be loved by everybody? That's what they say Elite used to be. Why would a Publisher try to produce the next Elite when they could produce Elite itself?

[WX_Peregrin]

Sure, elite was great for the time...and maybe it still is compared to some of the crap that comes out...but let the past stay in the past. Even if it did make it into 3d, it would only carve a very small niche for itself.

[AR81]

Well I got Elite.
But I guess it's hard to get the feeling of using old DOS games once you player newer ones with better interface, just like X Beyond the Frontier or Hardwar.

[milod]

Originally posted by Second Chance
Anyway, here's some food for thought. Why does everyone talk about Elite as if it's some kind of long lost ancient alien technology that can never be recovered?
Nostalgia. Elite was mind-blowing at the time it was released, in much the same way that, say, Wolfenstein or Doom were for the 3D FPS genre. The original Elite didn't really have a plot in the modern sense, although it did have a goal: to earn enough experience points that your pilot rating was raised from "Harmless" all the way up to "Elite".

The original Elite is still a fun game today, in much the same way that Asteroids and NetHack are fun today. If you experienced any of those games when they were new and considered "cutting edge" technology, they hold up quite well. If you were raised on modern 3D photo-realistic games with more sophisticated play patterns, you probably won't see what all the fuss is about.

If Elite was so great, and the ultimate standard to which all other space-sims aspire, why doesn't someone bring Elite itself into 3D? Literally. Take the original code and implement it through a modern 3D rendering engine. Just simply adding whatever additional artwork was necessary to flesh it out in full 3D. Wouldn't that be the guaranteed, best-selling space-sim ever produced?

I've never played the original Elite. So for all I know, it is long lost ancient alien technology that can never be recovered. But, unless there's some kind of crazy legal voodoo (like with I-War), I don't understand why this hasn't already been done.

Wouldn't it be guaranteed to be loved by everybody? That's what they say Elite used to be. Why would a Publisher try to produce the next Elite when they could produce Elite itself?
There is all kinds of "crazy legal voodoo" surrounding Elite. The game was created by two british university students - Ian Bell and David Braben - who made a small fortune off the game and then subsequently had a bit of a falling out. Braben went on to create about 1.75 sequels to Elite under the names "Frontier: Elite 2" and "Frontier: First Encounters". Each game sold fewer copies than its predecessor. FFE was pushed out the door somewhat prematurely, and tarnished the name of the series to some small degree.

Braben's company owns the rights to the name, and has been threatening to make ELITE IV for years, but like Duke Nukem 4, there has been no sign of any real progress.

You can learn more here: http://www.frontier.co.uk/games/elite4/faq.html Note that the last time this FAQ was updated was in 2001.

[Second Chance]

Thanks milo, that explains a bit. I really wish I could have played Elite when it came out. I love the idea of no plot, but a realistic life goal, in a totally freeform and dynamic universe. I'm still waiting for this in a modern game.

[AR81]

Originally posted by Second Chance
Thanks milo, that explains a bit. I really wish I could have played Elite when it came out. I love the idea of no plot, but a realistic life goal, in a totally freeform and dynamic universe. I'm still waiting for this in a modern game. Try Hardwar. Plot is secondary and it is told via email in the game.

[Brutalisk]

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for bringing up a relatively old topic. I know most people hate that. I have been gone from these forums for a very long time, but I recently stumbled on this particular topic and found it so interesting that I had to reply. :D


Even though young at age (26), I'm a very old gamer. And, I am a big fan of space sims.

After reading this whole thread (*takes a moment to catch a breath*), I have to say this:

Firstly, the person who said one of the reasons Spacesims are not a big hit was a lack of standard was right. (ie that you don't know what to expect when you buy one) Which should also answer the complaints made by those who moan about teh big co-orporations not innovating. Innovating is risky because nobody experienced that (the result of that particular innovation) before. That's why EA and MS own half the industry while independents either go bust or get acquired by bigger firms before they go bust, in order for those big firms to exploit the one good idea the independents had among the one million bad ones)

Secondly, I was disappointed at first reading about Freespace2 when yet couldn't see anything about XWing and WIngCommander; until ofcourse I reached the last third of the thread.

XWing is the KING of spacesims. (and ofcourse its latter incarnations, Tie Fighter and then later to a lesser extend, XWing Alliance) I'm disappointed they stopped its development. Even though it's mostly a repetition I find it absolutely great -> here is where the motive for big co-roporations to keep copying a successful formula come (just look at all the damn soap operas and tv series you watch every day, tehy all follow distinct succeful formulas and are all just clones of a long distant innovation).

WingCommander appealed to the other side of me -> I like storyline (unlike some of the posters further above). I think WingCOmmander did great to provide that. On the other hand, "Starlancer" AKA "WingCommander nth" who was done by the two same people only udner the M$ Banner, was good in terms of play, nice battle graphics, huge ships, even had to fight inside an asteroid, but it lacked any cinematics.

I'm a sucker for cinematics. I love stacraft's in-between missions cinematics and Tie Fighter's little scenes... I often see them as a reward for managing to finish a certain stage, as well as a way of immersing myself in the game. Maybe one day the cinematics will be part of the game engine. Blizzard partially attempted this with Warcraft III, (and the expansion of starcraft) whereby some of the storyline was told through the game engine, but those things don't looka s spectacular as the proper cinematics.

Despite all that, for me, it's all about gameplay. With me so far? lol. I believe though a lot of the space sim critiscisms have been asnwered by some games already.

Privateer I and II - (which btw it pisses me off that "professional game reviewers have likened Freelancer (aka privateer III) as a copy of Grand Theft Auto. Privateer came BEFORE grand theft auto was even a sparkle in its creators' eyes) Yes, honourable mention goes to "Elite" as well - achieves what some of you want. You do NOT have to follow the storyline. You can go on forever doing other stuff and getting involved with other things, but guess what. It does get repettitive and eventually boring. I find that the story (hence some form of linearity) is needed to keep the player interested. If you really want open ended, then play multiplayer! Freelancer - but believe it or not i have yet to try it. :( Or Starwars Galaxies: Jump to lightspeed, which again I have yet to try but both seem to be great steps forward towards that end. :)

I can rant on and on bu I'll wait for a reply... in order to give this brainstorming of thoughts some focus. I must admit I have shot off to quite a few different tangents here, but it was a reply to most of the stuff I read on this thread. :)


edit: In terms of realism, firstly, there are some strong foundations on the theory behind shields - aka force fields. We also know how to construct laser weapons. The problem is the vast amount of energies needed, which guess what, a FUSION power generator would actually solve! And that one is also already in sight; somewhat. BTW, one famous phrase about gaming was, realism is great as long as it doesn't get in the way of playability. (I don't recall the exact wording) Some things for example, such as having to fly for a few hrs tog et somewhere, well, you know it's only natural players will get bored. Esp if u have to fly from point X to point Y about a thousand times within a game. Even in flight sims or world war ii games, they have been careful not to make the wait too long, otherwise ppl DO get bored.

In terms of complexity, someone pointed out that Space Sims are way too complicated. THAT is the main reason why they do not appeal the masses and only appeal to those ready to COMMIT to the game. STRATEGY games are also not as popular as other genres. WHY? Because you have to use your head way too much. Most ppl don't seem to like using their heads (besides the occasional bang on the wall), because it makes their heads hurt There is a sub-genre of STRATEGY games in particular, where it attracts even fewer people. It's strategy games like COLONIZATION and Starknights (http://www.starknights.com). Those don't follow the traditional route of techs (colonization does to a certain extend in the form of "founding fathers"). Instead you have a PRODUCTION tree. Throws all the new players into the deep end straight away. Information overflow. All of a sudden, all those who don't want to use their head, either because it hurts when they think or because they can't, will immediately walk out of the game...

In terms of challenge, (i'm just addressing several different parts of this thread), I too love the idea that once you die.. you are dead! I guess though it would have to be tweaked with also some form of reduction in the likelyhood that you die though to COMPENSATE. DO NOTE though, that any attempts towards making the game harder towards that respect (there was a game where the developers deliberately didn't have save in while in a missions just so that you'd be forced to take care instead of saving every 10 secs (referring to an fps game). It became that game's biggest player-complaint. It is a fact, that nobody likes the TRUE consequences of dying in a game. That's why most players find safety in frequent saves and that's why in-game cheats are also popular. People seem to not want the fear of dying/losing.

Then there is a step further than that. Players that fall under the category of "whinging" or as someone said, about them crying whenever they die. You want to know how ridiculous it gets? A friend of mine was complaining to me a few years ago that he finished his C&C "nth milking clone" (if u catch my drift) too easily. I asked him what difficulty setting he had it on. He said "easy". I told him, well why don't you play it on "hard"? He said, that was too difficult. :weird: :eek: :weird:

Unfortunately the majority of the people who buy computer games fall into thatd escription. They want to CONQUER the game effortlessly and then they like to complain about how easy it was. At the same time, they resist any real steps towards making a game more difficult. Difficult games never sell (the rule but ofcourse I am sure there are exceptions)

BTW, all in all, if you guys want to work towards the dream space sim: take the strong points from XWing (and its sequels such as TIe Fighter) and ofcourse WingCommander (and its sequels and spinoff, Privateer)

Those two are still the benchmark. Freelancer2 was one of the few other space sims that had an impact on me. Most of the others were either unplayable or uneventful. XWing did have a form of "OS" and COMS system which would get damaged in battle. You could often find yourself without a targeting system. Cap Ships also have a stronger punch than fighters and while you CAN destroy a cap ship on your own it's relatively more difficult than other games. Besides, cap ships are never meant to be alone and bombers are their achilles heel. Since you want realism, the true defense of a cap ship is its own contigent of fighters and bombers, NOT its armament.

[Momaw]

Originally posted by Brutalisk

BTW, all in all, if you guys want to work towards the dream space sim: take the strong points from XWing (and its sequels such as TIe Fighter) and ofcourse WingCommander (and its sequels and spinoff, Privateer

You seem to have neglected Freespace 2. Which has the best fighter/warship dynamic I've ever seen. Warships in Xwing were dangerous, but not really dangerous, once you mastered the art of conical evasive maneuvers. Star Wars warships, oddly, do not seem be mixed-caliber armaments. Meaning, that a Star Destroyer packs something like 50 turbolaser turrets; but where are the quad-blaster emplacements to discourage fighters? Freespace 2 does address this problem. Warships have BIG guns for pounding on eachother. Said big guns will instantly vaporize your fighter if you get caught in the crossfire, which is the way it should be. Then they also have AAAf beams, flak guns, lasers galore, and missile launchers. Crusing in low over your target, trying to surgically disable some of its armament while not getting blind-sided by the turret you didn't notice, that's what the fighter/warship dynamic should be all about. Also note that FS2 ships were big. When you pulled up alongside one, gaining, gaining... just see the hull go scrolling slowly by, coming up on the bow... finally, past it. And you go, "wow, that thing is huge". We need more "wow".

The perfect space sim, in my mind, is:

Freespace 2's combat dynamic
X's dynamic economy
I-War's newtonian flight and "universe" model
Revolutionary, dynamically generated and simulated galaxy

Depressing to dream...

[Brutalisk]

I actually mention freespace2 further down in my post. I liked Freespace, it's the only other space sim I truely liked (no, I haven't played them all, but let's not turn this into a competition, I'm sure we all have our favourites) :)

As for the cap ships, I hear you, but you have to remember this, cap ships (in reality, sicne they are basically immitations of NAVY ships) are vulnerable to torpedo runs and small fighters.

When you think of cap ships, think of NAVY ships. For example, a battlecruiser. While it has defenses it is no match for the fighter contigent of a carrier. The same applies for the carrier itself. Its real defense is its own fighters.

[Parias]

Originally posted by Brutalisk
When you think of cap ships, think of NAVY ships.

I'm sorry, I still choose to substitute your reality in favor of beam cannons.

http://members.shaw.ca/alvandyk/FS2CloseShave-sm.jpg

Edit: VVVVVV

Originally posted by Momaw
FS2 did let us down in the reality department there, because it wasn't uncommon to see the destroyers (largest hull size save dreadnaughts) roaming about without any escorts. Probably because if they did throw you against a realistically built formation of enemy warships, your chances of survival would be pathetic, and the mission would just be frustrating.

That, and one has to remember that the release version of FS2 was quite a number of years ago and had quite a few technical limitations, not the least of which was an event / message limit that prevented any form of incredibly complex, large-scale scripting. Basically, it was much easier to just put the missions together with the bare-bones necessities because it wasn't practical to push the engine to its total limits at the time.

[Momaw]

Originally posted by Brutalisk
When you think of cap ships, think of NAVY ships. For example, a battlecruiser. While it has defenses it is no match for the fighter contigent of a carrier. The same applies for the carrier itself. Its real defense is its own fighters.

I think it's more accurate to compare warship vulnerability to missiles, not torpedoes. Once an aerial torpedo bomber drops its weapon, the weapon is effectively invulnerable since it's in the water. There's no guns on ships below the waterline, trying to knock the torpedoes out before they reach the target. In space, however, there's nothing stopping the target from trying to nail it all the way in. Modern naval vessels do have defenses versus incoming missiles, and FS2 warships will attempt to shoot down incoming Cyclops (which is why you're skimming the hull in the first place, trying to plant your weapon effectively).

And it's true that even here, the warships won't be able to survive the wrath of a whole bunch of fighters at once. They just don't have enough effective weapons or coverage to nail everybody. But then, the sort of big ships that would be worth sending an entire squadron against wouldn't leave home without an escort. A carrier does use its fighters as an aggressive defense, but you also never seen one without a whole flock of other ships sailing with it. FS2 did let us down in the reality department there, because it wasn't uncommon to see the destroyers (largest hull size save dreadnaughts) roaming about without any escorts. Probably because if they did throw you against a realistically built formation of enemy warships, your chances of survival would be pathetic, and the mission would just be frustrating.

[The Great Destroyer]

Originally posted by Momaw


The perfect space sim, in my mind, is:

Freespace 2's combat dynamic
X's dynamic economy
I-War's newtonian flight and "universe" model
Revolutionary, dynamically generated and simulated galaxy

Depressing to dream... [/B]Except for the X' dynamic economy didn't the planned B5 game have the other characteristics.


As for the topic at hand,I think that the future of any game hit will come from the smaller game designers who actually have incite as to what we as gamers like,but this is unlikely due to the whole trying to satisfy a "broader audience" from the big publishers ala Halo,Bungie, MS.

[river]

Small thread hijack--
Does FS2 play nice with windows xp?

-river

[Parias]

Yes, it runs flawlessly under XP.

[river]

Okay, I'm gonna have to pick it up... what else can I do, until Battlestar Galactica licenses the Flux engine?

-river

[Parias]

You.. haven't played Freespace 2?

UNACCEPTABLE. If you are unable to find a reliable source to pick it up, please ICQ me so I can immediately make the necessary arrangements to expedite you a working copy.

[river]

I just did a quick google--anywhere from 50$ to 145$ for a used copy!

Did find the original Freespace and it's expansion pack for 12$...

I don't use icq, but I pm'd you.

-river

[Pyros]

Parias's generiousity is legendary.

[Parias]

Originally posted by Pyros
Parias's generiousity is legendary.

Herein, and everywhere else, forever. :cool:

Returned your PM River - enjoy the game. It's only because of your exceptional haste in taking up my offer to obtain the game that I forgive your heathen sin of somehow not having played it until now.

[river]

:)
Thank you very much!

I believe I've mentioned this before, but: the first thing I did when I connected to the internet (1998) was a search for spacecraft games, and I was delighted to learn that one could download 'free samples'!

Iwar and FS2 were the first demos I tried; Iwar was by far the harder one, I had a difficult time destroying that 'wreck' and those mines.... but damn, that was the way I imagined a stellar warship with a crew of plus 40 should handle, and I was hooked.

I'd played several fighter sims before; Strike Commander, F-15, Yeager, TAW....that probably contributed to my passing on FS2.

But too many people who's opinion I respect hold FS2 as high as they do Iwar, so I-must-play-this-game!

(If for no other reason than to see Beam Weapons Done Right):D

Btw, it may be wishful thinking, but I'm expecting a new crop of space sims to appear. The success of Battlestar Galactica, and the two Stargate shows (both of which are showing more involvement with ships than gates), add the relative success of X2, combined with the trend towards including a variety of vehicles in first person shooters....whether there will be enough 'sim' in what I'm expecting, to satisfy the hardcore space sim fans, of that I have doubts.

Oh well--

again, thanks Parias.

-river

[Hot4Darmat]

This (http://www.costik.com/weblog/2005_03_01_blogchive.html#111070130229508681) may seem like a departure from the direction this thread has taken, but it fits with the general theme. It's a blog by a game designer I stumbled across when I was surfing following links regarding the death of the great boardgame designer Redmond Simonsen (he did some cool sci fi boardgames during their heyday in the 70's, but mostly did a bunch of wargames). Anyhoo, about the middle of this blog page, under a heading "But it's over now" is a speech the writer gave at a computer game design/industry conference. It summarizes nicely what many posts in this thread have discussed in some form or another. Game design has gone hollywood, and big budgets have killed innovation dead.

Don't expect to see many cool or innovative space sim games (or games of any genre) anytime soon, unless we make them ourselves, (GO Shane and GrandpaTrout, GO!) or we go hunting for them actively since, as indie developers, they'll have no marketing budget to speak of to inform their target audience of the product...(which is actually another reason I continue to come here: there's always somebody discovering some cool obscure gem and posting a link).

There are always, of course, exceptions, but they are increasingly rare. Nexus is turning out to be an enjoyable gem of a game, but it went through such development heck, and passed through so many different company's hands, it's amazing it ever saw the light of day. Gives me hope, though.

[Brutalisk]

"Probably because if they did throw you against a realistically built formation of enemy warships, your chances of survival would be pathetic, and the mission would just be frustrating."

Well, you see, in a game like FS2, you shouldn't really be flying solo. You too should be backed up by several cap ships and squadrons of fighters. :)

In msot of these sims AI co-pilots tend to be **** i know, but.. atleast it gives them more targets to shoot at until you wipe everyone out or decrease their numbers a bit to give you a fighting chance. :)

I used to use an editor for Tie Fighter to make my own taylored missions that would push player capabilities to the limit.

[river]

Originally posted by Hot4Darmat
This (http://www.costik.com/weblog/2005_03_01_blogchive.html#111070130229508681) may seem like a departure from the direction this thread has taken, but it fits with the general theme. It's a blog by a game designer I stumbled across when I was surfing following links regarding the death of the great boardgame designer Redmond Simonsen (he did some cool sci fi boardgames during their heyday in the 70's, but mostly did a bunch of wargames). Anyhoo, about the middle of this blog page, under a heading "But it's over now" is a speech the writer gave at a computer game design/industry conference. It summarizes nicely what many posts in this thread have discussed in some form or another. Game design has gone hollywood, and big budgets have killed innovation dead.

Don't expect to see many cool or innovative space sim games (or games of any genre) anytime soon, unless we make them ourselves, (GO Shane and GrandpaTrout, GO!) or we go hunting for them actively since, as indie developers, they'll have no marketing budget to speak of to inform their target audience of the product...(which is actually another reason I continue to come here: there's always somebody discovering some cool obscure gem and posting a link).

There are always, of course, exceptions, but they are increasingly rare. Nexus is turning out to be an enjoyable gem of a game, but it went through such development heck, and passed through so many different company's hands, it's amazing it ever saw the light of day. Gives me hope, though.

Your link led me to this:
http://crystaltips.typepad.com/wonderland/2005/03/burn_the_house_.html

The Chris Hecker bit reinforces what I've believed for quite awhile--the biggest bottleneck in game growth is better AI. Especially for space-sim combat, where there are no real world counterparts, since it is (usually) based on tech that doesn't exist.

-river

[Hot4Darmat]

Cool. Thanks for that link. It was good to hear the rant in the context of all the other ranters. It's very interesting to hear the pet peeves of the main design gurus of the industry are so similar to ours. Maybe there IS a revolution in the air.

Reminds me of one of my favourite grafittis I saw on a wall in Montreal twenty odd years ago:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, the Revolution is over, and so as not to inconvenience anyone, nothing has been changed."

[hoom]

Viva! :bored:

[GrandpaTrout]

One point is that the price of games has fallen. When I purchased System Shock, it was $70.00 (IIRC). Titles that publishers do not expect to do well are now priced at $30.00. Add some devaluation from inflation (say the value is $25.00) and you can see that developers/publishers are trying to survive on a third of the price. And development costs have greatly increased.

It was scary to see Warren Spectors point that 4 out of 5 large budget titles fail to make money. That is corporate suicide.

[hoom]

Inflation based devaluation is the only change in price I've seen round my neck of the woods.
But we have fairly low inflation & all but flatline wage inflation.

I should probably mention the ****storm brewing over Rome:Total War:

Basically the developers bit off too much & were unable to complete the game properly in time & budget, leaving a game with a butt load of bugs, lousy AI & many incomplete or broken features some of which affect core gameplay.

Meanwhile, the target market of the game was the RTSers rather than the not insubstantial core TW market who are now almost uniformly alienated from the developers.

Making things worse is the fact of a 2 patch (one being a hotfix quick one) policy/contract with Activision that has left some serious problems with the game until the expansion which is also traditionally a huge patch, problem is many of us think we shouldn't have to pay to get fixes for stuff that is broken now & makes the game boring/unplayable.

Oh & now the developers have been purchased outright by SEGA.

Many longtime community stalwarts are raving or worse.
This from people who were early buyers of Shogun, & have been evangelising the series ever since.
There are a whole bunch of former ravening fans who will now think very hard about purchasing from Creative Assembly again, myself included.

I feel for the developers because clearly lots & lots of time money & effort went into the game but the things that are either wrong by design or mistake are so glaring.

[dmfp321]

I have RTW and I haven't really noticed anything to funky with it. Then again its the only TW game I've played and also one of the few RTS's I've played. Could you tell me what some of the bugs are though cuz I haven't really played it all that much?

[AR81]

Have you seen the extras of the movie The Incredibles? There, the director, Brad Bird, was talking about how making great stories is mostly like gambling, because if you really make a story, you just don/t repeat your last success. He says that's why businessmen hate the movie industry.

At most, you can say "hey, that's a good idea, well... I hope so".

Same thing happens to games. Making games is risky, just as movies. Making good games is like gambling.

I'd say you should see the extras of such DVD.

IWar2 didn't repeat anyone's formula, even IWar's.

[hoom]

If you play it a bunch, you'll find stuff like the strategic map AI forgets its plans when you do a reload.
Most famously an AI seiging your cities will almost always disengage on the first turn after a reload then reingage the next turn.
A normal seige by the AI will take 4-5 turns before an assault.
Because most people only play a few turns at a time by the time you hit midish campaign, the AI is left crippled and effectively stagnant.
In the extreme case of a save/reload each turn the AI is strategically completely static.

There are plenty of other things like unit path-finding in cities (play more than a few city assaults and you will understand) especially around the critical city centre.

The battle AI is fundamentally retarded.
There is something weird about how combat works so that 1 unit vs 1 unit battles can take 10+ minutes but almost all big battles take less time.

In the previous games, you could have epic 3+ hour battles with wave after wave of enemies and friendly reinforcements.
The AI was somewhat better at least effectively in both previous titles and at both levels (though I think it is mostly the same, just that some of the things that have changed for RTW have an effect that the developers apparently didn't take into account)

Worst of all, many of these are denied as being bugs or customer experience breaking, bad design choices by the developers inspite of big chunks of the community proving the bug and/or stating their unhappiness about it.

Like X3, we have to wait for the expansion for fixes to things that should be patched and given developer denial of the existence of many issues, many aren't likely to be fixed at all.

Gah.

[AR81]

People usually think that something is "impossible", like flying or going to the moon. Once you defeat such idea, you can achieve great things.

My bet with indie developers is that they see things from a developer perspective.

Why not gathering all your fans around you? Why not creating a fan base? You don't need an expensive game, just a good story, properly registered, and you start doing that, making a game with a portion of the story, so people may want more. It's a slow process, but it may pay back.

The problem in USA is they have a very conventional view, company centered, of the market.

--------------
CULTURAL MARKETS

Cultural markets are unlike any other.
If you produce rice, you compete in the market of rice.
But if you produce cultural products (like movies, games, and so on), the rules of maket are different.

What was the size of the Star Wars market in 1976? Zero, none, nada. In 1978? Huge, huge...

People may think that Star Trek and Star Wars are competitors. But they are not. A fan of Star Trek won't move to Star Wars, even if the new movies, toys or stuff that is produced are crap. So Star Trek and Star Wars aren't substitute products between each other.

You may imitate Star Wars, but you can't create a substitute.

If there is merchandise regarding Star Wars and Star Trek, a fan of both will make a choice determined by liquidity, but eventually the fan will buy the good stuff of both franchises, sooner or later, except in the case of lack of availability of products.

That leads to another point. Why is that such franchises have limited availability of products?? Scarse products raise the price for collectors but it won't bring profit either for the franchise owners or even the publishers. So, limited availability lower sales. It is as if businessmen wouldn't want to make money.

--------------
CREATING A FAN BASE

Creating a fan base of a registered thing, which is kept consistent by staying in touch with fans, by not betraying fans, is having your own market.

For companies, having a fan base is a necessary evil. But an artist exists thanks to his public. So an artist mustn't mistreat his fan base, unlike what companies do sometimes.

--------------
PITFALLS IN CULTURAL MARKETING

When you betray fans, they will attach to the old stuff and won't buy the new stuff.

Star Control 1 and 2 were great, consistent, and tasty for fans. Star Control 3 wasn't and it was a fiasco. But company freaks thought Star Control has market no more, while Star Control 3 betrayed fans, and fans reacted by not buying.

Lucas made 3 great movies long ago. The new ones aren't good. So many fans refused to support the new stuff.

Battlestar Galactica was a bit cheesy back then, but there were fans. The new series betrayed the old series. So many fans didn't buy or support the new series.

Wing Commander succeeded while it was faithful to fans. The movie was boring, the ship designs were changed, Kilrathi weren't cats anymore... So the movie was a fiasco.

Riddick instead, earned a fan base. Pitch Black was fine. Dark Fury too. Chronicles of Riddick was fine. Despite of not repeating the same formula, the universe was consistent and the writer/director kept the essence of what fans wanted. In this case it was storyline. David Twohy, the director/writer said that many sequels fail because they bring more of the same thing, basically a formulaic sequel.

When you don't repeata formula, you are challenged to improve your last success with something surprising, but still faithful to what fans like. IWar 2 did it. MOO3 didn't.

So you can see some elements of cultural marketing. Got to go, will continue later...

[Brutalisk]

"Star Control 1 and 2 were great, consistent, and tasty for fans. Star Control 3 wasn't and it was a fiasco. But company freaks thought Star Control has market no more, while Star Control 3 betrayed fans, and fans reacted by not buying."

I agree. This is particularly true about Master of Orion. Despite the disappointment Moo3 has been, if Atari was to create MOO4, a lot of people would potentially queue to buy it. Maybe the pre-orders won't be as many as MOO3 got, BUT, if MOO4 would turn out to be a good game, then it would definitely make a lot more "permanent sales" and potentially win a large part of its audience back.


"Lucas made 3 great movies long ago. The new ones aren't good. So many fans refused to support the new stuff."

I think you are being a little harsh there. ;) Granted they are not AS GOOD as the 3 first ones, but it is hard to produce the same kind of reaction from the sequels.. err prequels. :D


"Battlestar Galactica was a bit cheesy back then, but there were fans. The new series betrayed the old series. So many fans didn't buy or support the new series."

There are things I didn't like in the new series and there are things which I wish were in that were in the original one, but I think in this case, the new series was actually - *gasp* - an improvement. :) OK, there was no real Starbucks and there was that awful hollywood recipe in the script, but overall it did alright.


"Wing Commander succeeded while it was faithful to fans. The movie was boring, the ship designs were changed, Kilrathi weren't cats anymore... So the movie was a fiasco"

I wish they'd make more WC games though. :( The company was bought by Micro$oft and the Erin brothers made two games for them effectively using the same recipe as before and the same weapons etc. Only with improved graphics and no movie scenes (instead the scenes were computer graphics). The two games in question are Starlancer and Freelancer. Starlancer is WingCommander only you are "an american hero".. pff sorry but it gets boring. Freelancer is ofcourse Privateer III. Somehow WingCommander and Privateer were far more immersive...

XWing, TIE Fighter, WingCommander Series and Privateer hold a special place in my heart. :) FreeSpace2 (and to a lesser extend XWing Alliance and Starlancer) simply served as a means to ease the pain somewhat.

[milod]

Originally posted by Brutalisk
I wish they'd make more WC games though.
Too expensive. Wing Commander IV was the most expensive game production of all time (when it was released in 1996). To film live action sequences now, with professional B-list actors, even on a greenscreen... it would be astronomical. There is just no evidence that a production like that could ever recoup the initial investment in today's console-oriented game market.

[Parias]

Originally posted by Brutalisk
I agree. This is particularly true about Master of Orion. Despite the disappointment Moo3 has been, if Atari was to create MOO4, a lot of people would potentially queue to buy it.

If by "create MOO4", you mean "remake MOO2 with modernized graphics and a few gameplay tweaks", then I concur - because that's literally all they'd have to do to get me to eagerly pick up MOO4. I don't know what the hell happened with MOO3, but it was a huge let-down for me because I was basically expecting something along the lines of "MOO2, but better", and instead they put out a totally different product that sucked horrendously.

[molases]

With regards to the blog posting.
I read it and several other speaches given at a developers conference report and many were in a similar vien.
It seems that game publishers and console manufacturers are looking forward to this mega-budget era that's about to happen; but developers aren't and in fact are being quite vocal about the fact.

I think it's fair to say that developers, whom are the first to admit do it because they love games, could well be sitting on the next Sim City in terms of gaming evolution; but as we all know unless a product either has a popular license (NHL, etc.) or is a follow up to an popular series of games (Command & Conqure, etc.) then chances are you and I will never see that... even through it might be a seriously kick ass game.

If this had happened during the early years of games; then quite simply I don't belive that there would be a games industry today, the safest course back then would be to NOT produce computer games and stick to known markets.
It's also amazing how much our beloved industry has changed, EA used to be quite a good publisher; they published the original 'descent' game: Magic Fly for example. I can't see them doing that now.
I realise that a companies first duty is to make as much profit as possible for it's directors/shareholders... but am I the only person who sees that churning out sequel after bloody sequel of formulaic crap isn't going to be a long term profit generator? Take Command & Conquer, personally I haven't brought one of these titles since Red Alert; I've played Tiberium Sun, RA2, Generals and well they feel slower and more bogged down.

Take space sim's for example. EVE:Online has reportedly 50k players, there are multiple single player games in development currently... so it's not like people don't want to play these games, other wise developers wouldn't create them (after all... they create things that they'd love to play given half a chance)... so where are the AAA titles from the big publishing houses? Why instead do we have yet another crop of FPS's and RTS's that are ultimatley boring.

Then again why do they seem to fly off the shelves?

[Brutalisk]

Let's say movieclips are out of the question, atleast they should buy the WC universe and make more games based on it.

Starlancer was a "cheap" immitation... and a clear sign of how Microsoft was trying to recoup the money they paid to buy the WC creators. ;)

[molases]

Originally posted by Brutalisk
Let's say movieclips are out of the question, atleast they should buy the WC universe and make more games based on it.

Starlancer was a "cheap" immitation... and a clear sign of how Microsoft was trying to recoup the money they paid to buy the WC creators. ;)
To be honest I wouldn't expect the next Wing Commander game (or something similar) to have FMV scenes in it. A good graphics engine should be able to do it on the fly, besides which jumping between the engine and FMV often means the game feels disjointed as the engine is never able to pump out the same quality of things that the camera can shoot. Also you can only film so many scenes in so many different ways; primarily because of the cost of shooting, so by going that route you also heavily curtail the ways the player can interact with the universe. By having scripted engine events you can generate more sequences and thus give the player additional choice.

As for "cheap" well, personally I feel that way about most Microsoft software products they've put out. Having said that though usually their hardware is pretty good.

[Second Chance]

I haven't had time to fully follow this thread lately, but here's my quick two-cents on the most recent posts.. . . but am I the only person who sees that churning out sequel after bloody sequel of formulaic crap isn't going to be a long term profit generator?

. . . Why instead do we have yet another crop of FPS's and RTS's that are ultimatley boring.

. . . Then again why do they seem to fly off the shelves? Putting these three sentences together, I think the question answers itself. It only takes a quick look at television to see that run after run of formulaic crap is exactly what generates long-term profits. Remember, whether we like it or not, games are mass-media now. And they're going to follow all the same rules for any other mass-media for sale. I think you were assuming far too much intelligence and purchasing discrimination in the average consumer.

I hate to quote a cartoon, but I think the satire really sums up the point here nicely, soooo, as Fry said in Futurama when Leela mentioned "clever" and "unexpected" regarding mass-media: ". . . But that's not what audiences want. Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared. People don't want anything original, they want to see the same thing they've seen a thousand times before. . . " And then remember that the same people watching reality-tv and prime-time dramas, about folks with problems you wish you had, are the same people who are really driving popular game sales. Not we self-proclaimed and enlightened "Gamers".

My 2-cents.

[Brutalisk]

Molases: true, when i refer to cut scenes I don't nenecessarily mean movies with real actors. Look at Blizzard's cutscenes. They are not real actors, but they r not part of the game engine (except for warcraft III and some in the starcraft broodwar extension) either and they r great. :) I love those small cinematics between missions...

[Momaw]

I'm apparently one of the few people who actually felt that Master of Orion 3 had some interseting ideas. The whole concept of macromanagement was very empowering. It was no longer a question of deciding what to build and where to build it. It was more a question of learning how to tickle the computer with build priorities and funding levels to make it do all that FOR you. Want more ships? Specify the ship type you want to see and push some money down the pipe. You'll see ships pop out as production finishes. It really did feel like you were an omnipotent interstellar despot, because you weren't worrying about trivial little things anymore. You planed strategy, and let your governors figure out what to do about it.

The problem with all of this is that it was such a revolution game concept that nobody "got it" without extensive play time. Take the money indicator, for example. People thought this was the amount of money you actually had in your account. Not so! That was your projected next-turn cash flow. Your actual amount of money in the bank is totally different.

Two things really killed Moo3 as far as I'm concerned:

1. Lack of documentation. People don't want to play a game they don't understand. It took me a LONG time to sit down and figure out how exactly taxation levels worked; why some worlds were going bankrupt, and others were saying, taxes, what taxes? The whole game is fiendishly complex if you want to get into the nuts and bolts of the thing and "play it aggressively". And the manual just didn't explain it.

2. Combat. Was not only poorly documented (what do ECM and ECCM do exactly!?), it was dull and repetative. Assemble a huge wadge of ships, send them at the other huge wadge of ships, and somebody will be left on the battlefield when the dust settles. There was neither the time nor the tactical subtlety to actually manage your fleets in any meaningful way.

Anyway. Pity. I doubt we'll see another.

[Parias]

Originally posted by Momaw
The problem with all of this is that it was such a revolution game concept that nobody "got it" without extensive play time.

With respect, what is there to "get" about a game that could literally win itself if all you did was hit "End Turn" a whole bunch? :)

[Momaw]

Originally posted by Parias
With respect, what is there to "get" about a game that could literally win itself if all you did was hit "End Turn" a whole bunch? :)

If you're trying to suggest that the game's AI is on the lacking side, I think that I might have to agree with you.

[Parias]

Actually, I'm referring to the whole "macromanagement" thing - the way the game basically ran itself without requiring your direct input (as well as combined with the allegedly quirky AI, I suppose) meant that you could literally stood a good chance of winning the game just by starting up a new session and clicking "End Turn" a lot. That's what I've heard from a lot of people in any case.

[Brutalisk]

I think Moo3 had several positives, it's just that its negatives didn't allow players to discover and enjoy its positives.

The major contributor to that above was also player-expectation. Players were expecting MOO2+ not MOO3. Just like MOO2 broke a few hearts MOO1 when it was released. The only difference is that MOO3 broke far too many moo1 and moo2 hearts. ;)

MOO1 -> focus on macromanagement
MOO2 -> more emphasis on micromanagement and lack of any real macromanagement
MOO3 -> focus on macromanagement but with far too many "layers"

There are quite a few people I know that love the game. I haven't had extensive personal experience with it yet, but it does have several features that appeal to me. Some of them were good ideas that were badly implemented.

[Hot4Darmat]

I hate to drag a thread even further off topic, but I'll go with the flow on this one, as the on-topic discussion is pretty much exhausted: Has anyone played BOTH MOO3 and Galactic Civilizations? If so, how do they compare?

I was one of those people that truly loved MOO2, and when I read all the stuff about MOO3, I just avoided a broken heart by staying away. I also read that Galactic Civilizations was everything MOO3 was supposed to have been (perhaps from the MOO2 fan perspective), meaning better interface, flexibility, A.I., management balance, economy, diplomacy, etc. So I bought it and gave it a test run, and liked what I saw. I've since lacked the time to really get into G.Civ., know it well, and enjoy it. I still plan on doing this but wanted to hear from anyone who knows both games reasonably well and can do a compare and contrast on them. (MOO3 can be picked up in local EB used/bargain bins for next to nothing, which usually speaks volumes for the quality or demand for the game).

[Parias]

Originally posted by Hot4Darmat
(MOO3 can be picked up in local EB used/bargain bins for next to nothing, which usually speaks volumes for the quality or demand for the game).

Don't forget that barely three months after its release a number of years ago, Hostile Waters started selling for $2. :)

[Hot4Darmat]

Then I stand corrected and that particular index is not a valid measure of a game's quality...only of its demand. HW is one game that got just about everything right...and it still was a relatively 'unknown' title.