No more Games?

Started by
37 comments, last by CAKE 20 years, 3 months ago
Hmm...I thought that was rhetorical.

In any case, I''ll be happy to answer that. But first, I''ll need to differentiate between what you call games and what everyone else calls games. I''ll denote your type of games as game*s.

People don''t make game*s anymore because there are types of games other than game*s that many people enjoy more. Two of those types are those that you call simulations, and the kind you so despise in which gameplay and story are freely intermixed. The market for game*s is evidently limited to pretentious snobs so arrogant they redefine language to fortify their otherwise meritless arguments that there is only One True type of game. Most people argue there is too little originality; you''re the first I''ve seen argue there''s too much.
---New infokeeps brain running;must gas up!
Advertisement
Wha? Where did my post go?

I DID post here right?

very strange........


quote:Original post by CAKE
Impossible: GalCiv was a bad game. You got to raise your standards a little higher. It just didn't have it. I will take a look at the Victoria game by Paradox however.

I honestly think your standards are too high then. Anyway it doesn't matter, I can enjoy whatever I want to. It annoys me a lot when I like a game, have my own opinion on it, and people insult me because they don't like the same thing. You can hate GalCiv, I have no problem with that, but don't expect everyone to have the same opinions as you. Actually, as you've experienced for this post, your opinions are unqiue.

You seem to be in a growing group of people that, for whatever reason, cannot enjoy anything... It could be because you've experienced all the games that you'll ever like (very possible after playing games for 25 years.) If that's the case I suggest that you stop playing games. There's nothing wrong with that, maybe you've just grown out of gaming. Maybe your era of gaming has just passed and you should go back and play your classics and be done with it.

What I want to know is what your own personal "perfect game" would be. This is a game design forum, so humor us.


[edited by - impossible on January 18, 2004 2:05:44 AM]
Flarelocke: I see you have no idea what a game really is. Entertainment can come in many forms. You can watch a movie on your computer screen and be entertained but it doesn''t mean it''s a game because people enjoy it. What everyone else calls games doesn''t interest me. I hear people say they have a sporty mini van because it has a pin stripe. How can a box be sporty? I have played every catagory of game and have enjoyed some in each catagory. 99%+ of all developed games past 5 years have been a dogs breakfast. You don''t know what''s good or bad and never will because you don''t see the center point in things if it has it. Your all over the place.

Impossible: I never said I hated GalCiv, you said that. I never insulted you either, you said that. Suggesting you need to raise your standards is an important thing I told you but instead you grab your silly little game and run in the corner with it. If you want to design a good game you have to know what is wrong and what is right in a game. For example, a group of people thought that introducing a shuttle horse in Dark ages of camelot was a great idea. Bad design. It was because of that tunnel visioned idea that the singing bard is out of business as the main transportation, now know one wants to group with him much. You probably think it''s a great idea and you will go off soloing in a mass multi player game because your having fun and don''t care what anyone else thinks right? I care and do something about it, where most others just do the usual and ALWAYS accept bad design with open arms and mouth.
quote:Original post by CAKE
Impossible: I never said I hated GalCiv, you said that. I never insulted you either, you said that. Suggesting you need to raise your standards is an important thing I told you but instead you grab your silly little game and run in the corner with it. If you want to design a good game you have to know what is wrong and what is right in a game. For example, a group of people thought that introducing a shuttle horse in Dark ages of camelot was a great idea. Bad design. It was because of that tunnel visioned idea that the singing bard is out of business as the main transportation, now know one wants to group with him much. You probably think it''s a great idea and you will go off soloing in a mass multi player game because your having fun and don''t care what anyone else thinks right? I care and do something about it, where most others just do the usual and ALWAYS accept bad design with open arms and mouth.

Saying I have bad tastes in games and need to raise my standards because I happen to like a game that you don''t is an insult in my opinion. I don''t think the game is badly designed, and in the end fun is what matters. If someone has fun soloing in an MMORPG more power to them (as long as they don''t wreck the game for other players that is.) It would be nice if you actually explained why you think GalCiv is flawed (and I''m not saying it''s a perfect game, but it''s definitely not bad) instead of typing up some weird analogy about shuttle horses.
quote:Original post by Defcon1
Wha? Where did my post go?

I DID post here right?

very strange........


it went to the dualshock thread.


quote:Original post by Defcon1
Cake, you need a console....BAD. Preferably Gamecube or Playstation.

quote:Original post by CAKE
99%+ of all developed games past 5 years have been a dogs breakfast.


You are aware that about 99% of all games EVER made are pure fecal matter, right? Only difference now is that games come out more often.
Now a word from the local commie: OPEN SOURCE GAMES! They''re not motivated by money, so they don''t have as much pure eye-candy, but the one''s that''re relatively done are GREAT in terms of gameplay. Examples: Cube. It''s an open source FPS. Google for it.

void Signature(void* Pointer)
{
PObject(Pointer)->ShowMessage("Why do we need so many pointers?");
};

Osama and Bush walk into a bar. They each have a beer. Than Osama spontaniously asks Bush "How goes the enslavement of the American people?" Bush replied, "Yall just gots to keep on scarin ''em. We''ll just call all the Democrats terrorists or unpatriotic or sometin..." They then both remembered the day they had first decided to collaborate to work towards their common goal: the destruction of American values.
void Signature(void* Pointer){PObject(Pointer)->ShowMessage("Why do we need so many pointers?");};
quote:Flarelocke: I see you have no idea what a game really is. Entertainment can come in many forms. You can watch a movie on your computer screen and be entertained but it doesn''t mean it''s a game because people enjoy it.
I see you have no idea how language works. When someone says/writes a word, in this case "game", the listener/reader interprets the meaning of the word as he or she has heard it used before. This inevitable effect leads to large numbers of people sharing, at least approximately, the same interpretation of the word. Then some guy comes along, and uses the word in a manner he intends to be substantially dissimilar to the meaning everyone else shares, and tells them they''re wrong to use the word that way, as if he were handed the "right way" to use the word by God himself.

The way everyone else uses the word game is to denote something interactive and that runs on a computer or console. The way you evidently use it is "the things CAKE likes and the things similar to the things CAKE likes, that run on a computer".

Wrt the movie thing, something without interactivity beyond control of playback is called a movie; when it has interactivity, even in amounts too meager for your tastes, it is a game. Let''s take something like Space Quest; the flow of the story is fixed and there is only one solution to every puzzle. However, one can try various solutions and die in the process; this is the interactivity in adventure games. In a movie, one character cannot die in the middle of playback, and then have you try again. In RPG''s the interactivity is usually in selecting one''s destination, and the strategies one uses to defeat opponents (in console RPG''s, strategy is only necessary to defeat bosses, usually). In FPS''s, the interactivity is obvious and continuous.

quote:I have played every catagory of game and have enjoyed some in each catagory. 99%+ of all developed games past 5 years have been a dogs breakfast.
Oh? So what in the definition of "game" implies that the game must be good?
quote:You don''t know what''s good or bad and never will because you don''t see the center point in things if it has it. Your all over the place.
So where exactly have I declared what I like that you disagree with? Master of Magic is my favorite game ever (plays great under DOSbox 0.60 now, btw). I agree with your assessment of Homeworld 2, but for different reasons. I agree with both your reasons and your assessment of Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and Fallout.
---New infokeeps brain running;must gas up!

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement