SE5 screenshots ugly?

[Nats]

Is it just me or are the many of the SE5 screenshots shown quite ugly?

I'm particularly talking about the ground based battles screen shots. They look rather terrible IMO, worse than many Amiga games I used to have way back in the 80s! The other screen shots of space activity look ok-ish although I think the look of the GUI looks pretty ugly as well. I think SE4's GUI looked far nicer than the one shown here.

I obviously cant talk about the gameplay and certainly the real time fleet battles shown look quite promising, but I certainly hope these arent final shots. I cant imagine staring at that GUI for very long at all! I could probably put up with the ground battle graphics looking so bad as they probably dont happen all that regularly.

MM should take a look at Gal Civ 2's ground attack screen to see how it should look. And seriously folks put some work into the look of the GUI before August!

Nats

[Suicide Junkie]

As a minor point, SE4 dosen't really have any UI relating to ground combat.

[bearclaw]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the UI in SEV at all. If I was, I'd have stopped playing the game with SEII http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Ed Kolis]

Keep in mind that the ground combat in SE5, unlike that in GalCiv2, is not just "two opposing walls of troops lining up and shooting lasers at each other", though - it actually has quite a few elements of (someone will flame me for this, but I don't care - it's true) real-time strategy games, so ground combat is almost a minigame in itself - perhaps an ugly one, but the underlying model is far better than GalCiv2's "the one with the best multipliers wins, and perhaps having more troops will help" or even SE4's "invisible walls of troops which are at least individually represented" model! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Captain Kwok]

Some of the ugliness is the angle and compression of the screenshots, plus the fact that the 3d models are low on polys to allow most older systems to run the tactical combat without needing a speedy/costly video card.

The fact is that you can just skip over the visual tactical combat and just use the auto resolve strategic mode. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Raapys]

Well, performance & gameplay > graphics is how I see it. If it was up to me the game would still be in 2D, to avoid spending resources on other things than gameplay. As such I'm glad they at least didn't choose to spend alot of resources on the new graphics.

As for the UI, I partially agree. I don't like the lower-right button-window, and I'd prefer if the end-turn button was on the lower-right of the screen.

[Suicide Junkie]

Oh, me too.
SE4's graphics are great, IMO. They do the job of informing me about what is going on in the game, fast and efficiently. So much so that I can play it on my P-166 laptop anywhere, anytime.

[Atrocities]

The game is still in the beta phase. SEIV Graphics are what they are... I like them, exspecially since I changed some of the base colors to green and yellow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[StarShadow]

I agree, gameplay trumps graphics anytime. Hell, I still play Angband.

[Atrocities]

The UI may not appeal to you, but as long as it is functional, and believe me that is VERY important, then I tend to agree, eye candy is not important, but nice to have.

Functionality is more important than looks. Give me function, simplistic flowing logical function over eye candy any day.

My $0.02 cents worth.

[Nats]

Whereas I agree wholeheartedly about graphics v gameplay neither one is mutually exclusive of the other. I love Stars! for example and I like SE4 but I dont play them anymore due to the graphics (as well as other factors). GC2 looks the part and plays pretty well also. If I have to stare at a screen for hours/days/months on end I would prefer it to be attractive rather than unattractive. I wouldnt play a 2d game and why should I these days when computer power can handle far better graphics than they could years ago?

Apart form the fact that graphics have a hell of a lot to do with immersion in a game.

Nats

[Captain Kwok]

There are suprisingly large number of gamers that are really only interested in the strategic elements of the game and even put up a fuss when SE:V was moving to 3d models/star systems. I can't imagine how many e-mails MM gets complaining that the game is not 'spreadsheety' enough or is too 'spreadsheety'.

It might be of little comfort that SE:V's interface is completely moddable, including the fonts and UI elements... right now I can see how some people might not like the particular graphics style that was used.

And like I mentioned before, some hedging was done of course with the 3d models (planets, facilties, ships, terrain, etc) to keep game requirements and still allow for lots of on-screen elements at once.

Lastly, the static screenshots really make things look worse than they are - when things are moving around and exploding - it's a lot more fun.

[Artaud]

Raapys said:
Well, performance & gameplay > graphics is how I see it. If it was up to me the game would still be in 2D, to avoid spending resources on other things than gameplay. As such I'm glad they at least didn't choose to spend alot of resources on the new graphics.



I'm with you 100% on this.

[Q]

Artaud said:

Raapys said:
Well, performance & gameplay > graphics is how I see it. If it was up to me the game would still be in 2D, to avoid spending resources on other things than gameplay. As such I'm glad they at least didn't choose to spend alot of resources on the new graphics.



I'm with you 100% on this.



I'm with you 110% on this.

[Dizzy]

Well, Raapys, haha, buy a new comp u cheapo!!! If SEV hangs on to its monetary challenged playerbase with their 5 year old comps, then SEV wont ever be commercially viable. Sorry, but all a review has to do is say it has Amiga style graphics and the death knell will sound.

You peeps need to embrace 3D. I mean, I know you think a 3D Strategy Game is an oxymoron, but you're wrong. This is something that absolutely HAS to be done. I dont need to explain wahy, if you have any brains at all you already know. STFU and go buy a new computer. SEV commercially cannot hold back in the 3D dept. so you cheap bastards dont have to upgrade like evryone else. OMG.

Im sure you few hundred fans out there that swear 2D graphics are all you need will buy Amiga graphic styled SEV gameplay, but fortunately for SEV, it doesnt need you and so I hope the graphics will be up to date so the game sells.

[Suicide Junkie]

Would SE4 be improved by being rendered in 3D? No. It is about the GAME not the graphics.
It is the gameplay that keeps us playing SE4, making mods and shipsets and buying more CDs for people we know. A lot of us have been here since the last millenium, it is that good.

SE4's graphics are great. They look nice, but more importantly, they are enough to let the gameplay shine through. And if you want them to look better, you can either mod them yourself or download the stuff other people have done.
Who could need for anything more?
We're not watching a movie, we're playing a 4x wargame!

3D graphics are nice and all, but they mean Diddly-Squat for the gameplay that we are all here for.
Maybe someday you will learn that lesson.

The saddest part is that the retail market is indeed that shallow. Only fluff matters to them. And like everything else it will be there and gone in a month or two.

Meanwhile, SE3 still makes money.

[Kamog]

I think the SEV screenshots look great, including the ground combat. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Renegade 13]

Dizzy said:
[snip...]
I dont need to explain wahy, if you have any brains at all you already know. STFU and go buy a new computer. SEV commercially cannot hold back in the 3D dept. so you cheap bastards dont have to upgrade like evryone else. OMG.

Im sure you few hundred fans out there that swear 2D graphics are all you need will buy Amiga graphic styled SEV gameplay, but fortunately for SEV, it doesnt need you and so I hope the graphics will be up to date so the game sells.

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather you not tell people to "Shut the F*ck Up" and refrain from personal insults ie: "you cheap bastards".

And to be honest, the 4X genre isn't exactly one that has hordes of followers, so a few hundred fans are "needed"...

Lets say it retails for $50 US. $50 US x say 300 = $15,000...sounds like a lot of cash to me, and I bet it would to the developers here.

You're entitled to your opinion and to express it; but please refrain from insulting other members of this forum.

Thank you.

[Graeme Dice]

Raapys said:
If it was up to me the game would still be in 2D, to avoid spending resources on other things than gameplay.



I wish I knew where this fallacy first arose that a computer game cannot have both good graphics and good gameplayl; this incorrect belief that having one of them means that not enough time was spent on the other. It's got very little grounding in reality.

[Fyron]

It is based on much experience over the years with games being dumbed down or otherwise reduced in gameplay to make time for ever-fancier graphics. Surely it is possible to have both (and there do exist examples out there), but it tends to be less common...

Dizzy, please maintain the general level of civility of these forums. Thank you.

[Dizzy]

Imperator Fyron said:
Dizzy, please maintain the general level of civility of these forums. Thank you.



Rgr, rgr. Not meant as a personal insult to anyone, although was a sure kneejerk heated reaction to the thought some want to keep the game in the stone ages and think it will still be commercially successful. My bad, I actually thought everyone wanted it to be successful.

And while $15k is sure a chink of change, its NOTHING, NOTHING but a drop in the bucket to where it needs to be. If that's all it makles we wont ever see SEVI.

Like I said, w/o a good 3D front, it's just an ancient game that wont see the light of day on game shelves... er mb it will if those 300 peeps buy it preorder so MM can buy an endcap at Best Buy when it rolls out.

How can I say this nicely for those w/o higher brain functions... As fans of SE, it is your duty to see the game prosper so others will buy it. You spreadsheet jumkies need to see beyond your noses. Your appeal is in the minority. If you sent MM an email complaining about advanced graphics and higher CPU requirements cuz ur too cheap to penny up replacing your obsolete 5 yr old comp, then you arnt needed in the SEV ccommunity, thanks, pack your bags dont let the door slam on your arse on the way out. Bye Bye.

For everyone else, Im glad you realize that graphics sell. And SEV needs big numbers. Hell, I want to see Peter Jackson direct the Space Empires Movie. Is anyone working on a script?

[Atrocities]

If I Could as for one thing to make SEIV better, it would simply be to have the top down images rendered in 3d so that when they are facing in any direction, they are clear and not distored as BMP's are. Hell you probably could achieve this without 3d, have multiple angle views for the mini's. Past that, spinning gif plants would be cool. The rest are modding and bug fixes.

[Dizzy]

Suicide Junkie said:
3D graphics are nice and all, but they mean Diddly-Squat for the gameplay that we are all here for.
Maybe someday you will learn that lesson.



I know it's sad, but graphics sell, gameplay is 2nd. And while yes, we are all here because the gameplay rocks, money is what makes the world go round. Not good will. So take your snazzy gameplay and throw in some mediocre graphics and you have just another has been. Polish the graphics and stick a half naked babe on the cover and yeah, it'd sell. Big time. And money it'd make. A lot.

Do abbidon females look hot in mating season?

Seriously, tho, SJ. I know what you fear. When anyone else gets involved in a cult classic game and try and make money on it in doing so they change the game to appeal to the masses so they make more $$$... and that means dumbing down the gameplay and sticking in some stupid graphics... yeah yeah... Seen it many times. But know what? It works. Sad aint it?

I'm not endorsing that. As long as gameplay stays the same... inject all the hollywood collagen and botox you can... Hell, some breast implants wont hurt either. If SEV looks like Janice Dickenson when it hits the store shelves, all the better... But oh, please no dated ugly half assed graphics. It wont sell. Fact.

[Suicide Junkie]

It won't sell, IN RETAIL, maybe.

SE4 made a Aaron and Shrapnel a lot of money (even more in comparison to its development costs and when you consider there is only one employee, Aaron himself)
Heck, according to the Admins at shrapnel they were still selling them like hotcakes 5 years after it came out.

PS:
You really really need to cut down on the cursing and insults.

PPS:
You should read this:
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/blog/2005/02/24/why-traditional-retail-and-niche-games-dont-work/

PPPS:
You are probably the only person here who thinks that I fear that. I'm a Beta tester after all, and trying to get CBmod rewritten for SE5 by launch.

[Raapys]

I wish I knew where this fallacy first arose that a computer game cannot have both good graphics and good gameplayl


Oh, I can tell you that. It arose when market researchers found out that a very big group of game players cared *more* about graphics than gameplay. So they cut down on gameplay resources to have 'top of the line' graphics.

Anyway it's rather easy math to see how you can't have both unless you have a limitless budget:

You have 10 coins, representing both time and resources. You're to spread those among gameplay, audio, graphics and AI. As it stands, MM have given very few coins to audio and graphics, very much to gameplay, and the rest to AI. That's just how I like it in this sort of game, and obviously I'm not alone in feeling like that.

Dizzy, I have a one year old computer and can play all the latest games. Perhaps that's *exactly* the reason I really get afraid when people start talking about making Space Empires more like them.


As fans of SE, it is your duty to see the game prosper so others will buy it.


It's our duty to tell the developers what we want. Personally, I couldn't care less if the series ever got popular. In fact, it'd *much* rather it didn't, because that brings with it a ton of new issues and never anything good. Also, the bigger fanbase the bigger variety of people to please and the bigger chance some of us would be unhappy with gameplay decisions. Not to mention dumbing downs, etc., etc.

What I care about is that we continue to get games with improved gameplay, and that MM makes enough cash to be allowed to continue making them. Since he's still in business, he must be doing alright with his current fanbase.

[Dizzy]

SJ, yeah I know. You already know about the package. I'm speaking in general. I already know the guts are there. I just dont see, from what Ive heard and seen, that the graphics are all that good. If they arnt, then I fear the game wont do so well on the shelf.

I hope its wildly successful. I just dont see that happening if the eye candy appeal is lacking... Sucks so many peeps are hung up on that crap, but the better the eye candy the more it makes.

[Graeme Dice]

Raapys said:
Oh, I can tell you that. It arose when market researchers found out that a very big group of game players cared *more* about graphics than gameplay. So they cut down on gameplay resources to have 'top of the line' graphics.



Can you name a single game where you can conclusively state that the gameplay suffered because the graphics had too much effort spent on them. Not ethat this has to be a game where you that would have had good gameplay in the first place, so you'll need written documentation from the developers in all likelihood.


You have 10 coins, representing both time and resources. You're to spread those among gameplay, audio, graphics and AI.



Well, your analogy is fatally flawed simply because the graphics are orders of magnitude more expensive to create than the gameplay itself.


Personally, I couldn't care less if the series ever got popular. In fact, it'd *much* rather it didn't, because that brings with it a ton of new issues and never anything good.



This is otherwise known as being a fanboy.

[Captain Kwok]

I think it was a good move to go to the 3D graphics for SE:V. I also think it's a good idea that the models were hedged a bit to allow for the large battles that we've been accustomed to in the series - without requiring too much computer power. You'll note other similar games often hedge the number of elements instead. Yes, the graphics are not going to be cutting edge, but that doesn't mean they can't be a gameplay enhancement.

For this particular genre, I will say that gameplay is the primary factor for most purchasers and in particular the core players that will work to extend the game life via mods etc. SE:V will not need to sell gobs of copies in order to be successful and make money for MM/SFI.

[Raapys]

Can you name a single game


You really don't seem to get it. If you have a hundred thousand to spend on a game, then how you decide to use those again decides if the gameplay will suffer because of too much of the total resources was spent on graphics. It's simple logic. I don't need written documentation. If you use 90k on graphics and 10k on gameplay, then the gameplay will be worse than if you spend 80k on gameplay and 20k on graphics. What's so hard to get?


Well, your analogy is fatally flawed simply because the graphics are orders of magnitude more expensive to create than the gameplay itself.


How, exactly, does this make the analogy flawed? That it's more expensive just means you need to spend more coins to actually reach an acceptable graphic quality level.


This is otherwise known as being a fanboy.


Hardly. Fanboy's are the ones that always go up and support the developers whatever decisions they make, and appear to nearly be worshipping them and never complain about anything. Trust me, if MM do something with SEV that I don't like I'll be among the first to complain.

[Graeme Dice]

Raapys said:
You really don't seem to get it. If you have a hundred thousand to spend on a game, then how you decide to use those again decides if the gameplay will suffer because of too much of the total resources was spent on graphics.



Why don't you explain to us all how gameplay suffers if you can't pay the salaries of multiple designers? You only need one for anything but the largest projects. Programmers don't tend to make gameplay design decisions, and neither do artists.


It's simple logic. I don't need written documentation.



Of course you need written documentation, or else you're just making the argument because it's popular to complain about graphics on internet gaming forums.


If you use 90k on graphics and 10k on gameplay, then the gameplay will be worse than if you spend 80k on gameplay and 20k on graphics. What's so hard to get?



The problem, of course, is that gameplay reaches the point of diminishing returns on your monetary investment long before graphics reaches the same level. You won't get better gameplay by throwing money at a developer, as gameplay is essentially the result of one or two people's work. Once you've paid their salaries, giving them extra money wouldn't make any difference other than to make the design more muddled by adding other opinions. What that extra money can be used for is to pay the salaries of the dozens of artists and media producing people that can actually stack their efforts to produce something useful.


How, exactly, does this make the analogy flawed? That it's more expensive just means you need to spend more coins to actually reach an acceptable graphic quality level.



It's fatally flawed because the relative costs are completely different orders of magnitude, and you've not included anywhere near the proper level of granularity. The only way to make your analogy work would be to point out that gameplay costs about one hundredth to one thousandth of a "coin", so it doesn't really matter how much you spend on graphics. If your game has a development budget of $50,000, then you spend $45,000 of that on the gameplay, and only $5,000 on graphics. If your game has a budget of $10 million, then you spend $100,000 of that on gameplay, and the rest on the graphics. There's no point in spending greater and greater amounts of money on gameplay because of diminishing returns on your investment.


Hardly. Fanboy's are the ones that always go up and support the developers whatever decisions they make, and appear to nearly be worshipping them and never complain about anything.



You're not a Malfador fanboy, you're a gameplay over graphics fanboy. I suppose I could use the forum rat term, but that's less well understood.

[Captain Kwok]

I would estimate at least 50% of the development money for SE:V was spent on graphics related items. The remainder of the money probably was used to keep Aaron fed and sheltered. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Raapys]

Why don't you explain to us all how gameplay suffers if you can't pay the salaries of multiple designers? You only need one for anything but the largest projects. Programmers don't tend to make gameplay design decisions, and neither do artists.


Of course you benefit from more than one, just as you benefit more from ideas from 10 different people as opposed to the ideas of 1 man. I might think of an ingenius gameplay feature that you would never have thought of. On your last note, isn't it pretty common that a fair amount of designers also do programming?


Of course you need written documentation, or else you're just making the argument because it's popular to complain about graphics on internet gaming forums.


Yeah, that must be the reason. I get off on complaining about companies having way too much focus on graphics and too little focus on gameplay on gaming forums.


You won't get better gameplay by throwing money at a developer, as gameplay is essentially the result of one or two people's work. Once you've paid their salaries, giving them extra money wouldn't make any difference other than to make the design more muddled by adding other opinions.


Yet, everytime I play a game I can think of *uncountable features* to add to it. And again and again we hear developers cut features from the design document because 'there was no time/resources to implement it'. They must all be lying, obviously. The truth is that it was impossible to add anything more because they reached the magical "diminishing returns" limit! For many games it seems to come into play when they've added weapons, walking, jumping, basic AI and a couple of maps.


There's no point in spending greater and greater amounts of money on gameplay because of diminishing returns on your investment.


If developers today were anywhere near reaching the 'diminishing returns' limit, why aren't the games then just full of gameplay features? Or at least hours upon hours long? Don't forget that level/world design and building also goes into the 'gameplay' part. Game length isn't exactly outstanding these days either. Think it took me 6 hours to go through Half-Life 2 the first time.


You're not a Malfador fanboy, you're a gameplay over graphics fanboy.


Well, I suppose it's better than being a graphics fanboy like most people seem to be. Is that what you are? Personally, I'm really just tired of seeing the graphics get better and better over the last years, yet having the gameplay quality stall and diminish. Not to mention the Legend of Innovation and Creativity in games.

Developers of games like Space Empires and Mount&Blade, low-budget, 1-2 man projects, manage to create far more entertaining and featureful games than uncountable high-budget games. That tells me someone is better at placing their resources than others, and those others usually seem to be the mass-appeal companies that coincidently also happen to have top of the line graphics in their games.

Put it this way, presented with the choice of having access to the games of the 90's or those of today's market, I'd not even need to consider it. And it has nothing with fanboyism to do at all, but everything to do with actually appreaciating good games.

[Fyron]

Forget about the money; time is the relevant factor. Fancy graphics engines require programming time to make. Gameplay features require programming time to make. There is a limited amount of man-hours available. More time put into fancy graphics engines means less time for gameplay features. The textures and sounds and even models can be made by non-programmers, but it takes a hell of a lot of time to design and program a smooth 3d engine; orders of magnitude more than a 2d engine. Where the company is willing to invest time is the issue. Some can devote enough to both parts, some (eg: most console developers) devote too much to graphics and not enough to gameplay, and some probably devote too much to gameplay and not enough to graphics.

And as you said Graeme, you can't just keep throwing more programmers at the task and get increased productivity. While you can certainly benefit from more if you only have 1 or 2 (1 person doesn't have to make the entire game engine and graphics engine), productivity comes with an inverted parabolic curve.

[Raapys]

Of course, but there's the fact that tons of developers buy someone else's engine and do minimal work on it themselves so it fits their game. Anyway, it still comes down to a question about money/resources, because the more money you have, "the more time you have", as you don't need to rush out the game to cover your expenses.

[Dizzy]

Well, if they need more money, I'm sure they could have arranged 'pre-orders'... but havent seen that call. I guess they are content with the progress they are making... Are they making progress?

[Graeme Dice]

Imperator Fyron said:
The textures and sounds and even models can be made by non-programmers, but it takes a hell of a lot of time to design and program a smooth 3d engine; orders of magnitude more than a 2d engine.



And yet, if you actually talk to developers they will tell you that it's easier to make a 3D game than a 2D one. The art is that much simpler to generate, and nobody needs to develop a 3D engine from scratch.


And as you said Graeme, you can't just keep throwing more programmers at the task and get increased productivity. While you can certainly benefit from more if you only have 1 or 2 (1 person doesn't have to make the entire game engine and graphics engine), productivity comes with an inverted parabolic curve.



While it's true that you can't put an unlimited number of people on a project, the actual design of the game requires creativity, while things like the graphic engine generally only require competency. That means that you reach the point of diminishing returns far faster.

I see people complaining that developers sacrifice gameplay for graphics, which completely misses the point. If a game doesn't have good gameplay, then blame the lead designer, not the graphics, because spending less time on the graphics won't change anything if your designer can't make a fun game in the first place.

[Graeme Dice]

Raapys said:
Of course you benefit from more than one, just as you benefit more from ideas from 10 different people as opposed to the ideas of 1 man. I might think of an ingenius gameplay feature that you would never have thought of. On your last note, isn't it pretty common that a fair amount of designers also do programming?



What you're promoting here is game design by committee. Would you make the same argument for a screenplay or book? That adding a fifth, or sixth, or tenth author would make the end product better? Of course you wouldn't.

While many designers do program, that doesn't make all programmers designers.


Yeah, that must be the reason. I get off on complaining about companies having way too much focus on graphics and too little focus on gameplay on gaming forums.



On any given day, thousands of people make posts to gaming forums that copy the opinions of other people so that they will feel accepted by the other denizens.


Yet, everytime I play a game I can think of *uncountable features* to add to it. And again and again we hear developers cut features from the design document because 'there was no time/resources to implement it'.



An unlimited list of features will take an unlimited amount of time to complete. Trying to implement every single feature you might initially want means that you will never release your finished product.


The truth is that it was impossible to add anything more because they reached the magical "diminishing returns" limit! For many games it seems to come into play when they've added weapons, walking, jumping, basic AI and a couple of maps.



What is wrong with that list of features you just presented? It seems like that would be a perfectly fine set of features if somebody is trying to make a competent game that will be enjoyed by a moderately large group of people. There's no requirement that every single game give you hundreds of hours of orgasmic gameplay. As there are dozens of games released in any single year, ten hours of entertainment is almost always more than enough for customer satisfaction.


If developers today were anywhere near reaching the 'diminishing returns' limit, why aren't the games then just full of gameplay features?



Who says that they aren't? There's no benefit in adding features to a game just for the sake of adding features. All that does is increase the micromanagement load in strategic games for instance.


Or at least hours upon hours long? Don't forget that level/world design and building also goes into the 'gameplay' part. Game length isn't exactly outstanding these days either. Think it took me 6 hours to go through Half-Life 2 the first time.



So what's wrong with the length of HL2? Would you prefer that they doubled the length of the path you have to travel just so that it takes you twice as much time to finish? A short, well-crafted experience is worth much more than a long one full of even more crate jumping.


Well, I suppose it's better than being a graphics fanboy like most people seem to be. Is that what you are?



There is nothing


Personally, I'm really just tired of seeing the graphics get better and better over the last years, yet having the gameplay quality stall and diminish.



Why don't you present some actual examples of games where the stall and diminish then. Note that there is absolutely no requirement for innovation for a game to be considered a good game.


Developers of games like Space Empires and Mount&Blade, low-budget, 1-2 man projects, manage to create far more entertaining and featureful games than uncountable high-budget games.



The strategic layer of Mount and Blade is little more than a simplified version of Pirates!, a game first released in 1993. The combat itself is mostly unique (Die by the Sword's is probably still better), but suffers from poor AI. The best way to attack multiple attackers is to run full speed backwards so that they run after you in a line and only attack one at a time.

SE4 has gameplay and usability issues that will always keep it from being a great game unless they are addressed. The balance is absolutely horrendous, with entire swathes of technology completely ignored by any competent player. It's modding alone that makes SE4 worth playing.

The user interface is atrocious. There's absolutely no way, for example, to send a specific colony ship to a specific planet from the planet colonization screen. The UI doesn't even remember if somebody has already colonized a planet when you can't see the system. If you want to scrap a facility and build a new one, you have to select the planet from the map, scrap the facility, then reselect the planet from the map, go to the build queue, then add the facility. The list of every construction queue tells you absolutely nothing about where the shipyards are located. So, if you have a hundred or so shipyards, and want to build something at a specific one, you have to go around to each individually and check them every turn to see if they have finished their last project. You can add multiple items at once, but there's no way to turn off the repeat build function without clicking individually on every shipyard. Nor is there any way to build only a single turn's worth of units in multiple shipyards at once.


That tells me someone is better at placing their resources than others, and those others usually seem to be the mass-appeal companies that coincidently also happen to have top of the line graphics in their games.



What it should tell you is that those developers have better game designers than the people working for the large companies. Since you claim to prefer graphics over gameplay to such a large extent, you might want to go play some Autoduel. You must think it's one of the best games ever.


Put it this way, presented with the choice of having access to the games of the 90's or those of today's market, I'd not even need to consider it.



You do have access to the games of the nineties.


And it has nothing with fanboyism to do at all, but everything to do with actually appreaciating good games.



How many games do you play in a year? I'd hope it's at least 5, preferably more like 10 or twenty if you want to play good games. You might also want to take the rose-coloured glasses that you are viewing older games through. Or are you going to tell me next that Dune 2 is a better game that Rise of Legends because the graphics are worse in Dune 2.

[Fyron]

ten hours of entertainment is almost always more than enough for customer satisfaction.

10 hours, $10 sounds right. To me, $50 for a game that only gives 10 hours of entertainment is ludicrous.

Note that there is absolutely no requirement for innovation for a game to be considered a good game.

I strongly disagree.

[StarShadow]

I can name a game, Civ4. The only thing moving to 3d did for it was to balloon the system requirements. I've spent countless hours playing Civ1/Civ2/Civ3/Smac and it was time well spent. I played Civ4 up until the first patch and shelved it. It was buggy, lagged too much (especially on large maps) and just didn't feel as fun as previous Civ games. In fact, the more I played Civ4, the more I really felt like playing SMAC/X, which I still play.

[Raapys]

What you're promoting here is game design by committee.

One of the greatest games of all time(subjectively, as with everything else), Fallout, used a total of 14 designers, numbers from Mobygames. Baldur's Gate 2 used 8 total.

On any given day, thousands of people make posts to gaming forums that copy the opinions of other people so that they will feel accepted by the other denizens.

If I wanted to feel accepted, wouldn't I be agreeing with you? Someone had to come up with those opinions too. Couldn't I be one of them? Or would that be too inconvenient for your arguements?

An unlimited list of features will take an unlimited amount of time to complete. Trying to implement every single feature you might initially want means that you will never release your finished product.

And putting alot of your resources and time into graphics means you will have a very short list of features indeed.

What is wrong with that list of features you just presented?

Nothing, if you want to make just another clone to milk some cash out of the market. In other words, it's good for the guys selling it, but bad for the customers. "Bad how", you ask, "They're getting a game they can enjoy for 10 hours!".
Well, it's not really bad by itself. But do some comparing.

Baldur's Gate 2 offers, what, 100-200 hours of play to finish it, depending on play style? Add to that the ability to create different character, have a different party, do the quests another way, etc. Then take your regular Joe First Person Shooter with shiny graphics. You play through it in 5-10 hours, someday you might even go through it again , so you get 10-20 hours out of the box. Now, one would think the price difference between these games would be huge, since they offer such widely different amounts of content. So, is it? No. You pay the same, but what you get can't even be compared.

Who says that they aren't? There's no benefit in adding features to a game just for the sake of adding features.

Of course not. It's about adding features for the sake of gameplay and depth, a missing concept in today's games.

So what's wrong with the length of HL2?

It's too short. Heck, even Deus Ex, a game that has *far* more gameplay elements and features than Half-Life 2, was over twice as long as it, and even more enjoyable to play.

Why don't you present some actual examples of games where the stall and diminish then.

TES Oblivion, Age of Empires 3, Civ4, Deus Ex 2, Might & Magic 9, Heroes of M&M 5,
the unlimited amount of Doom clones, not to mention the C&C clones, etc.

Now, of course, you wont agree with that at all, because if you did we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So let me just say that I think all these games have been 'victim' of one or more of the following, you don't, and let's leave it at that: dumbing down for mass appeal, lack of innovation, too much focus on graphics, console conversion, lack of vision( i.e. just want to make a game that sell, no passion behind it).

The strategic layer of Mount and Blade is little more than a simplified version of Pirates!, a game first released in 1993

"Note that there is absolutely no requirement for innovation for a game to be considered a good game."

As for SEIV, to me it's already a great game: far greater than uncountable high-budget ones. The modding part of the game is a feature that definitely helps keep it fresh, but the best part of the game is the crazy number of gameplay features it offers, compared to any other game in the genre.

you might want to go play some Autoduel. You must think it's one of the best games ever.

Never tried it. I regularly play oldies, though. For instance the adventure games from Lucas Arts, Pizza Tycoon, X-com, Daggerfall, Imperialism, Capitalism, Reunion, System Shock, and many more.

You do have access to the games of the nineties.

Nevermind my point that games from the 90's blow the water out of today's.

Or are you going to tell me next that Dune 2 is a better game that Rise of Legends because the graphics are worse in Dune 2.

If I was gonna tell you Dune 2 was a better game, graphics wouldn't even enter in to the post. That's how much I care about them. There's two things that enter in. Gameplay and atmosphere/feeling. Now, graphics does enter in on that last point, but not the technical quality of it, but rather what mood it creates, how it fits the game, how it works with the music, etc. Daggerfall, for instance, is one of the most immersive games I know of( much thanks to the music), even though the graphics were considered average 10 years ago.

[Fyron]

The list of every construction queue tells you absolutely nothing about where the shipyards are located.

When you mouseover a SY, the galaxy map at the top indicates the system it is in. Saying it gives absolutely nothing is, well, absolutely wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

SE4 has gameplay and usability issues that will always keep it from being a great game unless they are addressed. The balance is absolutely horrendous, with entire swathes of technology completely ignored by any competent player. It's modding alone that makes SE4 worth playing.

Its almost as if Aaron intentionally included mods on the CDs, and made it trivial to both create mods, and install the ones other people have made! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

[ToddT]

Graphics not up to snuff? hmm, Mankind, comes to mind lousy 3d graphics (well dated and simple), and yet years later it still up and running. Game play, not so great.

SEIV, its newer but is 2d and had 3 releases. Game play personally the ai is easy, i prefer multi player, graphics is not why I bought the game.

there are quite few games this day and age that are still essentially text based. some even turn a profit. (the good ones and the ones for which that was the inteneded goal) some do have "pictures" but thats about it.

Games are written largely to targeted audiences, some groups are broader than others. For some types of games whiz bang state of art eye candy (visuals) in end become nothing more than a distraction, for others its the only way they can deferentiate themselves from the competition. (turns out a company is working on a program to help design sure fire sellers, games by formula, wonderful)

Hmm oblivion elderscrolls 4, yeah it has wonderfully well detailed graphics, it also brings even the latest graphics cards to there knees, if try run anywhere near max detail.
game play can't say, don't care can't run it.

Funny thing based on stuff i ran across some of the more ppoular fps with multi player mode, graphics settings are set as low as possible to maximize frame rates.

soory some to be all over place, on the other hand may be that was part of the point.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Oblivion was fun for a few hours. Then I realized it had essentially no differences between it and a formula RPG and got bored.

Download Daggerfall. At least it has truely huge dungeons.

[Kevin Arisa]

I never figured it looked that bad to some people. I've been working very hard on SE5 weapon and planet graphics. I know that those in charge of other graphical divisions have as well. All one can give is their best, nothing more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/fear.gif

[Captain Kwok]

I wouldn't worry Kev, most complaints I've heard are directed tend to be complaints about brightness, jaggy models, or UI colour etc. I know that most people will be thrilled by the quality of the component images - I know I was.

[Hugh Manatee]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Oblivion was fun for a few hours. Then I realized it had essentially no differences between it and a formula RPG and got bored.

Download Daggerfall. At least it has truely huge dungeons.



Where might I do that?

[Renegade 13]

Kevin Arisa said:
I never figured it looked that bad to some people. I've been working very hard on SE5 weapon and planet graphics. I know that those in charge of other graphical divisions have as well. All one can give is their best, nothing more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/fear.gif

Don't worry about it, those of us who have actually seen the graphics in-game are really happy with how they look. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Fyron]

Well, other than the general shininess and bubbliness of the UI...

[Renegade 13]

Imperator Fyron said:
Well, other than the general shininess and bubbliness of the UI...

Yeah, with the exception of the UI. However, component pictures, etc. look great in my opinion.

[Noble713]

For many people, myself included, the level of immersion in a game is directly related to how realistic the graphics look. If the characters on my screen feel fake I won't have as much fun playing the game. I'll take Oblivion (agreed it's not as fun as Morrowind and clearly dumbed-down for the Xbox 360 crowd, but it's BEAUTIFUL) and KOTOR 1&2 over Kings Quest 3 and Zork any day.

As for performance issues and upgrading systems: get with the times. If you want to purchase and play new games, expect to get new hardware to run them. Fortunately SE5 is easy to mod, but I can already see the outrage when mods start coming out with beautiful, high-poly ship models that cripple the performance of the P2-300MHz 64MB RAM systems running in software mode that seem to be all the rage amongst the turn-based game grognards.

And to snip any possible counter-arguments about the gameplay in such mods probably sucking b/c the modders spent too much time on graphics: there is a HUGE wealth of easily available 3d starship MESHES for the more established sci-fi universes. A good 3d program (like 3DS Max) and a DirectX .x exporter plugin, and having quality ship models takes virtually no time at all.

I love Space Empires, I've been playing since a friend loaned me Space Empires II waaaay back in 8th or 9th grade, but I'm glad the series is finally being dragged into the modern era of gaming.

[Captain Kwok]

Like I've said already, it makes sense to hedge the ship models a bit to allow for the large ship battles that are a key component of the series. A large battle with ships of several thousand polys each would be unruly for even top-end systems. That said, most of the models in the game right now are quite nice even if they are poly-economical. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

On the UI side of things, David Gervais' work always seems to be hit/miss with people around here - but you'd really find that anywhere. The key here again is that this time the complete interface is moddable - so maybe some enterprising artist will put some effort into an alternative UI for those players that would like something else. (Although I think it might weigh in at 50ish Mbs!)

[Ed Kolis]

Does SE5 support Dynamic LOD? That would be very helpful... ship models could start at 2000 polys for the small battles early in the game and when you zoom in, but when you zoom out in a large battle the game could switch to lower poly models, giving you the best of both worlds...

[Phoenix-D]

I wouldn't get too hopeful about upping the poly counts, either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif Most engines have a point where if you raise things too much performance starts to drop off all out of proportion to the actual appearence.

[Nats]

Well the Rome Total War is a case in point. That game has many thousands of troops and yet the graphics remain very good and gameplay is very good also. Obviously one not would expect a small independant outfit to meet RTWs standards. But amount of ships on screen meaning low standard of graphics ddoes not cut mustard with me. And there are many very old games like Frontier Elite, XCOM and Civilisation that were small games in terms of programming these days but I feel their graphics are still better than some of those shown on the screenshots page. Perhaps they will be far better when seen in the flesh I cant comment on that.

The UI IMO would look far better done in a metallic stylish hi-tech look rather than the rather uninspiring cartoony look it has.

I tend to prefer realistic graphics that pull me into the game. Im not a fan of cute or overly colourful cartoony graphics myself. Many of the ship graphics although admittedly quite fantastic still look very cartoony and 'unreal'. They need a bit of 'weight' and some rust/dirt. Has nobody here seen Star Wars?? Clean new spaceships went out with 2001 A Space Odyssey! What about some smoke effects that linger into the strategy map part from your tactical battles if your ships are damaged like GC2? What about some nice metallic finishes?

Perhaps some background nebula would help the sparseness of the space graphics as well.

And finally some of the grpahics look quite blocky and low res when close up - eg the info panels over the planets and ships. Theres no way jagged lines can be considered acceptable in this day and age!

Sorry to be so blunt but lets get real here. I'm not paying my good money for a game however good the gameplay is that looks bad. Lets face it there are millions of old games with fantastic gameplay that are resigned to the bargain bins or you can pick them up for a couple of quid - XCOM, Gunship 2000, Stealth Fighter, EF2000, HOMM, Shogun Total War, M1 Tank Platoon, Civilisation, Silent Hunter just to name a quick few!

Im one of the first people to express the importance of gameplay and gaming choice over snazzy graphics and repetitive linear missions etc. But that doesnt mean graphics are unimportant.

Nats

[TurinTurambar]

Edit: cleared out by /me.

[Suicide Junkie]

Personally, I prefer the iconic look, to the more "realistic" renderings.

The point as I see it is to know what the thing is, even just out of the corner of your eye so that you can make your strategic decisions, not to stare awestruck at various works of art until the turn deadline expires. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Phoenix-D]

If you think X-Com looks better than SE5 you haven't been looking close enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Rome can have many thousands of units on-screen because Rome cheats: there are actually at most 160 "units" on screen at a time. The thousands of little soliders don't have any actual bearing on the combat, so you don't have to worry about their position quite as much.

Still a very slick engine, though.

[Renegade 13]

Nats said:
The UI IMO would look far better done in a metallic stylish hi-tech look rather than the rather uninspiring cartoony look it has.

Well, I may work on just such a mod, to be ready when SE5 comes out if there's enough interest and if I don't feel too lazy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I tend to prefer realistic graphics that pull me into the game. Im not a fan of cute or overly colourful cartoony graphics myself. Many of the ship graphics although admittedly quite fantastic still look very cartoony and 'unreal'. They need a bit of 'weight' and some rust/dirt. Has nobody here seen Star Wars?? Clean new spaceships went out with 2001 A Space Odyssey!

Well...rust/dirt would make no sense at all. After all, rust requires water and oxygen in order to oxidize the iron. Space has neither. Dirt is the same...there's no dirt in space. There's really no reason ships wouldn't be clean and shiny, except for battle damage, micrometeroids (though shields should stop them), accidents aboard ships that damage the hull, etc. Rusty space ships would be very unrealisitic!

Perhaps some background nebula would help the sparseness of the space graphics as well.

Again, if it's realism you're going for, you wouldn't see nebulae from space unless you were really REALLY close to them, in interstellar terms. Oh, and there are some background nebulae in the system view.

Sorry to be so blunt but lets get real here. I'm not paying my good money for a game however good the gameplay is that looks bad.

Im one of the first people to express the importance of gameplay and gaming choice over snazzy graphics and repetitive linear missions etc. But that doesnt mean graphics are unimportant.

Nats

Many people would like a game that is more original than most of the derivative games out there today, even if it meant dated graphics. Though I do agree with you, graphics are important. But I don't think gameplay should suffer due to them.

Oh, and not all of us who think graphics aren't as important as gameplay have crappy systems...my system can handle anything I throw at it, even the latest massively graphics intensive FPS games.

[Suicide Junkie]

Phoenix-D said:
Rome can have many thousands of units on-screen because Rome cheats: there are actually at most 160 "units" on screen at a time. The thousands of little soliders don't have any actual bearing on the combat, so you don't have to worry about their position quite as much.

Unfortunately, as I have noticed, that game dosen't worry enough about their positions.

In multiplayer, me and my brother end up playing two different games as soon as the first shots are fired.
On one computer, the general dies from a catapult shot. On the other, he just got tossed on his butt and gets back up.
On one computer, the player's whole army routs, and on the other, it wipes out the enemy.

And the combat replay is a totally random third view.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Hugh Manatee said:

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Oblivion was fun for a few hours. Then I realized it had essentially no differences between it and a formula RPG and got bored.

Download Daggerfall. At least it has truely huge dungeons.



Where might I do that?


Whoop, my mistake. Bethesda is offering Arena for a free download, not Daggerfall.

[Atrocities]

Ok, you all want to talk about fancy graphics vs game play, well lets look at some games that had those fancy graphics and where they are now compared to SEIV.

Armada I and II - um bargin bins at remote computer stores and garage sales around the world.

Odd I know there are more games out there that focused on graphics over game play, but I just cannot remember them to point them out. However I can point out that despite being six years old, SEIV albeit an obscure little game, is still KING OF THE HILL when it comes to true 4x games and game play.

In fact it is so much the king of the hill that NO Game developer to date has even tried to topple it. Oh sure you can mention Moo3, but we all know how that ended don't we?

Sure eye candy is very very important to any game, but as most of us know, its the game play that tells the life span of any game. SEIV, with its ugly graphics and dated looking UI, is still KOTH and even though SE V's graphics look ugly to some, the game play will tell the tale as to whether or not the game is going to be a success.

So stop the *****'en, and enjoy the fact that we have a new 4x game on the horizon. Either do that or go make your own game and see how easy the whole process is. I am sure non of us here will hold it against if you end up using dated graphics.

[Graeme Dice]

Imperator Fyron said:
10 hours, $10 sounds right. To me, $50 for a game that only gives 10 hours of entertainment is ludicrous.



Well, that's your own decision to be dissappointed then.


Note that there is absolutely no requirement for innovation for a game to be considered a good game.

I strongly disagree.



That's good for you then, I guess. I'm not sure why innovation is necessary for computer games when it's not necessary for any other form of entertainment.

[Graeme Dice]

Imperator Fyron said:
When you mouseover a SY, the galaxy map at the top indicates the system it is in. Saying it gives absolutely nothing is, well, absolutely wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



Telling you what system it's in is almost as useless as telling you nothing, unless you only happen to have a single planet colonized in each system.

[Atrocities]

That's good for you then, I guess. I'm not sure why innovation is necessary for computer games when it's not necessary for any other form of entertainment.



And look at the state of "other forms" of entertainment.

Inovation, as stated, is IMHO, the hallmark of great games. Disputing this fact just proves the old point about one opening ones mouth and removing all doubt as to ones intelligence. *shakes head in disbelief of statement*

Of course now if you were being facecious, than please continue. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Graeme Dice]

Raapys said:One of the greatest games of all time(subjectively, as with everything else), Fallout, used a total of 14 designers, numbers from Mobygames. Baldur's Gate 2 used 8 total.



I suppose that now you're going to claim that each one of those people had equal amounts of input on every part of the game design.


If I wanted to feel accepted, wouldn't I be agreeing with you?



You want to boost your forum cred, not make logical arguments.


Someone had to come up with those opinions too. Couldn't I be one of them? Or would that be too inconvenient for your arguements?



Unless you happened to be on usenet around 1994, I highly doubt that you were the first one to come up with this now standard argument. It's not as though it's a new argument, since it's been used by people for more than a decade now.


And putting alot of your resources and time into graphics means you will have a very short list of features indeed.



Yet, if that list of features is still long enough, you are left with a good game.


Nothing, if you want to make just another clone to milk some cash out of the market.



I see, so you're actually just *****y that people want to make games that sell, rather than games that don't sell and lead to bankrupt companies.


Baldur's Gate 2 offers, what, 100-200 hours of play to finish it, depending on play style?



50 if you move quickly. Freedom Force, on the other hand, offers perhaps 20 hours of play, yet I would not say that Freedom Force is a worse game than Baldur's Gate 2.


Now, one would think the price difference between these games would be huge, since they offer such widely different amounts of content.



Somebody who thinks that would be an ignorant person with little grasp of economics.


Of course not. It's about adding features for the sake of gameplay and depth, a missing concept in today's games.



Why don't you actually provide a list of games, rather than simply repeating this assertion.


It's too short. Heck, even Deus Ex, a game that has *far* more gameplay elements and features than Half-Life 2, was over twice as long as it, and even more enjoyable to play.



It's nice to see that you're presenting your opinion as fact.


TES Oblivion,



Are you going to claim that Oblivion is a worse game than either Morrowind or Daggerfall? Because that claim is patently absurd.


Age of Empires 3,



You should really like this game, since it uses controls and micromanagement much like RTS games in the early 90's.


Civ4,



Is the best of the series, despite what Civilization 2 fanboys would tell you.


Deus Ex 2, Might & Magic 9,



Oh noes! A sequel isn't as good as the original. Whatever is the world coming to.


Heroes of M&M 5,

Is it better than 4? Yep. Is it different than 3, and therefore automatically completely horrible in the minds of the fanboy? Yep.

[quote]
the unlimited amount of Doom clones, not to mention the C&C clones, etc.



You've yet to provide a rational argument for why these are somehow bad. Note that even were these games never made, they would have no effect on the existence of games that you claim to like playing. The games that you claim to like playing tend to be commercial failures.


The strategic layer of Mount and Blade is little more than a simplified version of Pirates!, a game first released in 1993

"Note that there is absolutely no requirement for innovation for a game to be considered a good game."



Why don't you go back and read where you claimed that M&B was an innovative game, or would you rather we ignored that? I simply pointed out that except for the combat system, you're example of such a game is inferior to a product released almost 15 years ago.


As for SEIV, to me it's already a great game: far greater than uncountable high-budget ones. The modding part of the game is a feature that definitely helps keep it fresh, but the best part of the game is the crazy number of gameplay features it offers, compared to any other game in the genre.



The "crazy number of gameplay features", as you call it, are mostly useless unless the game is heavily modded to actually make them useful. As an example, every single direct fire, non-special damage type, weapon technology other than anti-proton beams and phased polaron beams could be completely removed from the game without changing the balance one bit. The others are strictly inferior, so there is no point in their existence.


Never tried it. I regularly play oldies, though. For instance the adventure games from Lucas Arts, Pizza Tycoon, X-com, Daggerfall, Imperialism, Capitalism, Reunion, System Shock, and many more.



Why are you claiming that games released in the last 15 years are oldies?


Nevermind my point that games from the 90's blow the water out of today's.



A point that is still completely unsupported by anything other than your opinion.


If I was gonna tell you Dune 2 was a better game, graphics wouldn't even enter in to the post. That's how much I care about them.



It's nice of you to miss the point yet again. It's also nice of you to admit that you haven't either of the games, because the gameplay advancements between Dune 2 and Rise of Legends are so blatantly obvious that only a fanboy would deny their existence.

I'm still waiting to hear how many games you play in a year.

[Graeme Dice]

Atrocities said:
In fact it is so much the king of the hill that NO Game developer to date has even tried to topple it.



To be fair, no eveloper has tried to topple it because the potential market is so small that you can only make money in it as an independent.

[Atrocities]

I cannot argue you point about the market being small, but then again, its the small markets, or the nitch (sp) markets that make the games that last six years or more.

[Saber Cherry]

@The first post:

I hated the ground combat in GC2, and thought it was the most glaring flaw in the game. It felt like sitting at a slot machine.

[Renegade 13]

Now now, people seem to be getting a little testy and defensive with regards to their opinions. Please keep it cool! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

(Of course, not applicable to all posts, just some)

[Raapys]

I suppose that now you're going to claim that each one of those people had equal amounts of input on every part of the game design.

No, but whatever does that have to do with it? I was pointing out that these acknowledged great games used far more than one designer.

You want to boost your forum cred, not make logical arguments.

But how would I do that without making logical arguments?

It's not as though it's a new argument, since it's been used by people for more than a decade now.

Then perhaps you should consider if there is some truth in it.

Yet, if that list of features is still long enough, you are left with a good game.

And if it's even longer then you are left with an even better game.

I see, so you're actually just *****y that people want to make games that sell, rather than games that don't sell and lead to bankrupt companies.

What good does it do you or me if they make games that sell when it's all been done before and they don't manage to provide anything new except yet another graphics update? For all its remakes and updates, I can only play Tetris so much before getting awfully bored with it.

50 if you move quickly. Freedom Force, on the other hand, offers perhaps 20 hours of play, yet I would not say that Freedom Force is a worse game than Baldur's Gate 2.

Well of course, but you seem to be missing the point entirely. Let's say for a moment that you liked two games just as much. Would you then pick the one that take 4 hours to complete or the one that takes 10 hours? To me that choice is sort of obvious, but you seem to try disagree on principle with everything I say, so I'm sure you'll pick the 4 hour one.

Somebody who thinks that would be an ignorant person with little grasp of economics.

Or someone who compares the game market to others where you actually pay more for quality.

It's nice to see that you're presenting your opinion as fact.

You asked what I thought was wrong about Half-life 2's length, I told you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you going to claim that Oblivion is a worse game than either Morrowind or Daggerfall? Because that claim is patently absurd.

It's worse than both of them. And of course you would think it absurd, anything else and you'd be surprising me.

You should really like this game, since it uses controls and micromanagement much like RTS games in the early 90's.

No I shouldn't. It provides just about *no* improvements from AoE2, and it cuts out many gameplay features and units. In short, a 'lite' version of AoE2 with shiny graphics and water effects they had one guy working on for an entire year. It's laughable.

Is the best of the series, despite what Civilization 2 fanboys would tell you.

Yeah, I'm glad we're not trying to present our opinions as facts here. I'm also glad we're not trying to diminish the opinions of anyone who might not be agreeing with you.

Oh noes! A sequel isn't as good as the original. Whatever is the world coming to.

You're kidding? You actually agree with me that those games were inferior to the first games? Wow!

Is it better than 4? Yep. Is it different than 3, and therefore automatically completely horrible in the minds of the fanboy? Yep.

Better than 4? Nah, not really. Better than 3? No chance. It's really a remake of HoM&M3 with a few differences and additions to the combat system, of course with "omg l00k we kan have phat graphixx 2!!". At least H4 tried something different. The whole style of H5 is just annoying to me. Some games really don't need 3D graphics, that was one of them. Besides, it doesn't have the charm of the first three, as I see it.

The games that you claim to like playing tend to be commercial failures.

Some, but not all. It's hardly a big secret that most players just prefer straight-forward action games, though.

Why don't you go back and read where you claimed that M&B was an innovative game, or would you rather we ignored that?

There's nothing to ignore, as I never said it.

I simply pointed out that except for the combat system, you're example of such a game is inferior to a product released almost 15 years ago.

Yah, the 'adventure' part of the game isn't exactly advanced. But the game isn't done yet either, though.

The "crazy number of gameplay features", as you call it, are mostly useless unless the game is heavily modded to actually make them useful.

We might be thinking of different 'features'. I'm not talking about the weapons, but rather things such as design tester, stellar manipulation, detailed design editor, detailed spying assignments, ship experience, etc. In other words, smaller details. It's these that to me make SE stand over comparable games like MoO2, for instance, a game which feature far greater atmosphere and feeling, but contains not half of the possibilities that exist in SEIV.

Why are you claiming that games released in the last 15 years are oldies?

You're saying they aren't? I bought a Lucas Arts collection pack not long ago, and it was actually called "Lucas Arts Oldies Collection". Regardless of that, they are the games I grew up with, and as such they are what I consider oldies.

A point that is still completely unsupported by anything other than your opinion.

Well, as you already mentioned, I'm not the only one with that opinion. Mostly, though, I just like playing good games, and seeing that I still play tons of games from the 90's but finish off new games after only a few hours, I mostly just figure there's something wrong.

It's nice of you to miss the point yet again. It's also nice of you to admit that you haven't either of the games,

Actually, I didn't miss the point. The reason I *avoided* the point was because I haven't played the later game, and as such can't comment on it. Dune 2, obviously, is one of my favorites through all times. Biggest issue I have with Dune2 is just the little advanced interface that makes it tedious to play.

[Atrocities]

@ the org post.

Your point is well posted, some of the images do not look all that good. The fact that you posted your thoughts shows that you have balls and I am sure there are more people than you realize who more likely than not will agree with your observations.

Its observations like yours that get people to make suggestions to improve things. Historically Aaron has listened to them with a very open ear. Unfortunetly now that he is an employee of SFI, the choice to listen openly might not always be available.

If you dislike the look of the game after you have bought it, be forward, but polite, and email Aaron suggestions for improvements. I know that that is what most of use are going to do with the things that we find we dislike.

But in all fairness, making a game like this on a shoe string budge does have its faults, and the fact that we are even getting a new game given these budget constraints is a God send. So please consider keeping that in mind when you email Aaron and if you're willing, at least offer him some thanks for what he has given us.

[Graeme Dice]

Raapys said:
No, but whatever does that have to do with it? I was pointing out that these acknowledged great games used far more than one designer.



Well, since


But how would I do that without making logical arguments?



You make popular arguments. The "Graphics ruins the gameplay" myth is very popular amongst a particular set of strategy game fanboys.


Then perhaps you should consider if there is some truth in it.



Perhaps you should realize that people were making exactly the same arguments about the games from the 90's that you consider to be so marvelous.


And if it's even longer then you are left with an even better game.



Wrong. This is where you don't understand a basic tenent of design. Less is more. Adding in extra features just for the sake of adding extra features adds nothing to the overall experience, and can actually detract from the experience, because those features either aren't worth using, or actually make the rest of the game harder or more tedious to play.


What good does it do you or me if they make games that sell when it's all been done before and they don't manage to provide anything new except yet another graphics update?



It does me the good of providing me with a new game to play, that likely has at least something of a new take on the genre. Even if it's completely derivative, which few games are, it still provides something to do once you've finished the other games in the genre.


Well of course, but you seem to be missing the point entirely. Let's say for a moment that you liked two games just as much. Would you then pick the one that take 4 hours to complete or the one that takes 10 hours? To me that choice is sort of obvious, but you seem to try disagree on principle with everything I say, so I'm sure you'll pick the 4 hour one.



Of course I'd pick the 4 hour one. I received the same amount of enjoyment out of the two titles per your statement, yet the 4 hour game took less of my time, and leaves me able to spend more time either playing other games, or doing something completely different.


Or someone who compares the game market to others where you actually pay more for quality.



Would you care to point out where in the book or movie industries where people pay more money for beter quality? Oh that's right, you can't, because nobody does.


You asked what I thought was wrong about Half-life 2's length, I told you. Nothing more, nothing less.



You sound like a strategy gamer from the early 90's complaining about adventure games because you only get a dozen of hours out of them at most.


It's worse than both of them. And of course you would think it absurd, anything else and you'd be surprising me.



If you think that it's worse than both, then you must have specific points to outline why it is worse.


No I shouldn't. It provides just about *no* improvements from AoE2, and it cuts out many gameplay features and units. In short, a 'lite' version of AoE2 with shiny graphics and water effects they had one guy working on for an entire year. It's laughable.



No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3. It's amazing how the fanboys act as though game developers pissed in their cornflakes when they release a sequel to a game that doesn't exactly meet their impossible to meet demands.


Yeah, I'm glad we're not trying to present our opinions as facts here. I'm also glad we're not trying to diminish the opinions of anyone who might not be agreeing with you.



Would you care to point out some concrete facts to illustrate why Civilization 4 is worse than Civilization 2? The ability ot automate your workers alone is a point that means that no comparison can ever come out in the favour of Civ2. Note that complaints about the graphics engine are indicative of you not having a good enough computer to run the game, and as such are a problem with _you_, not a problem with the game.


Better than 4? Nah, not really. Better than 3? No chance. It's really a remake of HoM&M3 with a few differences and additions to the combat system, of course with "omg l00k we kan have phat graphixx 2!!".



Then what's the problem. You continue to act as though it's immoral to make a game that's designed to make money. You act as though the mere presence of HOMM5 means that HOMM3 no longer exists, which is asinine. You also act as though good graphics are a negative factor, which is only true if you don't have the economic resources to purchase a powerful enough computer to run the game. If that's the case, then I'm playing the world's smallest violin for you.


Why don't you go back and read where you claimed that M&B was an innovative game, or would you rather we ignored that?

There's nothing to ignore, as I never said it.



"Developers of games like Space Empires and Mount&Blade, low-budget, 1-2 man projects, manage to create far more entertaining and featureful games than uncountable high-budget games."

I simply pointed out that this statement is laughably incorrect. Mount & Blade has fewer features than Pirates!.


Yah, the 'adventure' part of the game isn't exactly advanced. But the game isn't done yet either, though.



Are they charging money for the game? Then it's perfectly acceptable to consider the current state as a completed game.


I'm not talking about the weapons, but rather things such as design tester,




stellar manipulation,




detailed design editor,




detailed spying assignments,




ship experience, etc.




It's these that to me make SE stand over comparable games like MoO2, for instance, a game which feature far greater atmosphere and feeling, but contains not half of the possibilities that exist in SEIV.



The problem with all those possibilities is that they make a game that's completely unplayable past about turn 40. It's ludicrous to expect people to spend multiple hours per turn on a game that's going to last for 200 more turns.


You're saying they aren't? I bought a Lucas Arts collection pack not long ago, and it was actually called "Lucas Arts Oldies Collection". Regardless of that, they are the games I grew up with, and as such they are what I consider oldies.



So, basically, what your actual argument is really "The games of today don't match up with my memory of the games that I first played in my youth." That's called seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses.


Well, as you already mentioned, I'm not the only one with that opinion.



You really don't want to be associated with the people that hold that opinion. They tend to inhabit places like the RPGCodex.


Mostly, though, I just like playing good games, and seeing that I still play tons of games from the 90's but finish off new games after only a few hours, I mostly just figure there's something wrong.



Yes, the problem is that you are expecting the modern equivalents of the adventure game to be something other than what they are.


Dune 2, obviously, is one of my favorites through all times. Biggest issue I have with Dune2 is just the little advanced interface that makes it tedious to play.



But, I thought that older games had better gameplay. Yet here you are now claiming that Dune 2 has interface problems. It seems that you can't even decide what side of the issue you actually stand on.

Oh! I've got a better one for you. You must think that the combat control system for swordfights in Defender of the Crown is amazing, since it's a really old game!

[Atrocities]

MODERATOR MOD

You know, its just that kind of negativity that prompts people to request that threads be locked. So lets please keep it civil and try and avoid trash talking or belittling sarcasim.

Irany is ok, but out right rudness just never gets us any where.

[Fyron]

No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3.

The sentence may not have been worded optimally, but he said that the water effects had one guy working on them for an entire year, not the whole game itself.

Would you care to point out some concrete facts to illustrate why Civilization 4 is worse than Civilization 2? The ability ot automate your workers alone is a point that means that no comparison can ever come out in the favour of Civ2.

This is entirely, absolutely, your opinion. Please stop deriding others for posting their opinions "as facts" when you do exactly the same, repeatedly. It does not strengthen your arguments.

[ToddT]

Imperator Fyron said:
No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3.

The sentence may not have been worded optimally, but he said that the water effects had one guy working on them for an entire year, not the whole game itself.





never really noticed the non-optimal wording, just what was meant by the sentence, one guy worked on water affects for a year. not surprising really, given modeling water in 3d is not simple or straight forward.

Was going say more, but I see no point, other than what interested me in this game had little to do with graphics.

[Renegade 13]

Here's an idea; how about we just drop the topic?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Neither of you are going to convince the other of anything, and the arguement has long since surpassed the point of reiterating what you've already said multiple times.

[Graeme Dice]

Imperator Fyron said:
The sentence may not have been worded optimally, but he said that the water effects had one guy working on them for an entire year, not the whole game itself.



And so what? What possible gameplay improvements would you have received by instead spending those wages on another designer. Did they not have enough designers to make sure that they got everything they wanted into their game? There's a small, extremely vocal group of gamers who are convinced that somehow, there would be better games if only people didn't spend money on graphics. This assertion is laughable, since game design is an artistic process. If you don't have a good designer, then no amount of money will create a good game.


This is entirely, absolutely, your opinion. Please stop deriding others for posting their opinions "as facts" when you do exactly the same, repeatedly. It does not strengthen your arguments.



Oh? It's nothing more than my opinion that Civ 3 and 4 are better because they allow you to automate away tedious micromanagement. If that's the case, then I can simply tell you that it's nothing more than your opinion that graphics eats away at gameplay like some sort of insidious cancer.

I thought you were smart enough to not attempt to shut down arguments by simply claiming "That's just your opinion", whenever somebody presents arguments. Note that neither you, nor anyone else has presented a _single_ reason why Civ 4 is the worst of the series, you have merely asserted that it is. And yet, when I present an actual argument, you completely ignore it.

Here's some more actual arguments so that you can continue to concede defeat by ignoring them. Civ 1 was a decent game, but it was made horribly tedious by the constant need to micromanage your pioneers. I assume that Civ 2 was the same, unless it actually had some way to not force you to micromanage them. Civ 3 and 4 fixed this major issue by freeing you from having to deal with the extraordinarily tedious worker shuffle. Now, there's absolutely no possible way to claim that the ability to turn on automated workers makes the game worse, since if you actually are one of those masochists who enjoy rote micromanagement you can simply not turn it on.

I'm sure that somebody else will come back with complaints that Civ 4 doesn't allow you to use infinite city spam, or some other tactic that was present in Civ2, making it the worst game in the series yet. To that I say: If you really want that to be the best way to win the game, then go mod it. I'm sure there's at least a couple of hundred people worldwide who would like to play your mod.

[Graeme Dice]

Renegade 13 said:
Neither of you are going to convince the other of anything, and the arguement has long since surpassed the point of reiterating what you've already said multiple times.



If you don't like the thread, then I have a simpler solution for you. You can stop reading it. Or you can do anything else besides trying to protect the losing side by suggesting that people leave the topic alone.

[Captain Kwok]

I think what some of the posters are trying to say that they don't require sophisticated graphics to enjoy a game as long as the gameplay is fun/good. If the gameplay is good, then nice graphics can only make it better. Although sometimes it might be frustrating if a game with both strong gameplay/graphics is made slightly less playable because the graphics are a little too intensive, making the game run slower etc. In most cases these days, you can get by reducing some of those in-game settings.

I'm not sure how we got off-track debating the merits of worker automation in the Civ series, but in general I think most would agree that Civ3/Civ4 would be more tolerable than the earlier entries. Of course, it is also possible that a feature that was lost in one of the earlier games sours their experience in face of other new options.

Obviously the graphics in SE:V in comparison to other games are somewhat lacking, but there's likely a couple of reasons. First, the money issue - better graphics generally means more time, which equals more money. Second, in order to keep large fleet battles workable, some "caps" were kept in mind when making the 3d models so that the game wouldn't come to a near standstill for on most people's computers.

Graeme, you don't need to be so edgy. I think merely Renegade13 was suggesting that no one was changing their position, so the thread was becoming a continuous re-hash of the earlier postings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Renegade 13]

Graeme Dice said:

Renegade 13 said:
Neither of you are going to convince the other of anything, and the arguement has long since surpassed the point of reiterating what you've already said multiple times.



If you don't like the thread, then I have a simpler solution for you. You can stop reading it. Or you can do anything else besides trying to protect the losing side by suggesting that people leave the topic alone.

Where did I say I didn't like the thread? The debate about SE5 was interesting, this continuous debate back and forth, over and over without anything being accomplished is what's annoying. I'm not about to stop reading a thread just because some people don't know when to stop arguing about their own pet peeves.

Also...how did my previous statment, in any way, "protect the losing side"?? I have no idea...and the lack of activity on this topic until you dragged it up after a week of dormancy suggests that others believe this topic was about ready to die anyway. If I was feeling particularly uncharitable, I'd ask you what crawled up your *** today and died...after all, this hostility had to have come from somewhere...

[Fyron]

Graeme Dice said:
If that's the case, then I can simply tell you that it's nothing more than your opinion that graphics eats away at gameplay like some sort of insidious cancer.

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

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

I thought you were smart enough to not attempt to shut down arguments by simply claiming "That's just your opinion", whenever somebody presents arguments.

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

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

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

Of course, even if you love all of the civ games, you would still technically have to consider one of them the worst of the series. Not worst because you think it is bad, but simply by virtue of not liking it quite as much as the others. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The problem with all those possibilities is that they make a game that's completely unplayable past about turn 40. It's ludicrous to expect people to spend multiple hours per turn on a game that's going to last for 200 more turns.

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

[Renegade 13]

Heh, my PBW turns even in a massive galaxy with lots of players around turn 150 only takes me about 20 minutes. Far from unplayable indeed!

[Suicide Junkie]

Indeed.

Processing the massive battles involving hundreds of ships, thousands of fighters and tens of thousands of missiles does take multiple hours on an old 800Mhz PC in the corner.

But actually playing the turn dosen't take much time. Waiting for people to get home from work, wake up, or whatever to play their turn takes the most time.

[Raapys]

You make popular arguments. The "Graphics ruins the gameplay" myth is very popular amongst a particular set of strategy game fanboys.

I see. And what kind of fanboy were you again? Since everyone else is one, I mean.

Perhaps you should realize that people were making exactly the same arguments about the games from the 90's that you consider to be so marvelous.

I wasn't around back then, so I suppose I should just take your word for that...or not.

Wrong. This is where you don't understand a basic tenent of design. Less is more. Adding in extra features just for the sake of adding extra features adds nothing to the overall experience, and can actually detract from the experience, because those features either aren't worth using, or actually make the rest of the game harder or more tedious to play.

Less is more is just a silly catchphrase. You're also automatically assuming that games made have an 'optimal number of features' already. For you that may very well be, for me that's as far from the truth as can be. Perhaps I'm just more demanding than you. The rest of your argument also assumes that it's a badly implemented feature so as to fit your opinion about the so called 'less is more'.

It does me the good of providing me with a new game to play, that likely has at least something of a new take on the genre. Even if it's completely derivative, which few games are, it still provides something to do once you've finished the other games in the genre.

True, it does. To me, though, those games stop being much fun because of the incredible lack of innovation, new features and new approaches to the genre. I.e. something that is special for that game. In other words, it's *not* something I wanna play. Again, taste and opinions.

Of course I'd pick the 4 hour one. I received the same amount of enjoyment out of the two titles per your statement, yet the 4 hour game took less of my time, and leaves me able to spend more time either playing other games, or doing something completely different.

I don't see playing games as a chore. If I have just as much fun when I play that 10 hour game as when I play the 4 hour one( assuming that I'm actually enjoying the games), then obviously I'd like to have fun for as long as possible and would go with the 10 hour game.
I've read it's popular these days to discover how to make sex last as long as possible, too.

Would you care to point out where in the book or movie industries where people pay more money for beter quality? Oh that's right, you can't, because nobody does.

I think the word you're looking for is 'entertainment industry', as there's plenty of non-entertainment books, for instance, which you have to pay more for, even if the quality in those, too, is subjective.

If you think that it's worse than both, then you must have specific points to outline why it is worse.

Why, of course I do. I'm not gonna list them, however, as it would 1) Take more time than I'm willing to spend in this thread, and 2) Wouldn't make a difference at any rate, except giving us yet another topic to discuss and not agree on.

No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3.

What's *really* laughable is how you managed to somehow land at that conclusion because I left out a comma in my sentence.

It's amazing how the fanboys act as though game developers pissed in their cornflakes when they release a sequel to a game that doesn't exactly meet their impossible to meet demands.

Yah, guess it was too hard for the developers to stop concentrating on the graphics long enough to figure out that the "fanboys", for some crazy reason, actually wanted gameplay improvements.

Would you care to point out some concrete facts to illustrate why Civilization 4 is worse than Civilization 2? The ability ot automate your workers alone is a point that means that no comparison can ever come out in the favour of Civ2.

That statement is also called an 'opinion', although "cleverly" disguised as both a "fact" and as an insult to anyone who might not share your opinion. And I wasn't the one that talked about Civ2.

Then what's the problem. You continue to act as though it's immoral to make a game that's designed to make money.

Actually, I couldn't care less about that. What I do care about, is that I'm not getting the games that I want; or rather, I'm not getting the games *as I want them*. There's alot of improvements I would have liked to see regarding Heroes 3 or even 4. Yet, they aren't coming. Sucks to be me.

You also act as though good graphics are a negative factor, which is only true if you don't have the economic resources to purchase a powerful enough computer to run the game.

My computer runs all games satisfactory, that's not the problem. And don't get me wrong, I don't complain about good graphics in other ways than that I believe it takes alot of attention away from the actual gameplay, which I consider a bad thing.

Anyway, 'state of the art' graphics doesn't make the gameplay good, and it doesn't make the atmosphere/feeling of the game good. Graphics plays a major factor, but not in the sense of 'technical advancement' of the graphics, but rather how it's used, the color palette, etc.

Games like Baldur's Gate 2, for instance, manage to combine all the factors: excellent gameplay( for those that like that type), pretty 2D graphics, superb soundtrack and sound effects, etc. While Neverwinter Night's graphics engine is far more advanced than BG2's, it doesn't, in my opinion, get anywhere near as practical and suitable to that game type, nor does it look half as nice as the 2D engine. It's mostly just sluggish, slow, unresponsive and annoying.

That's exactly how I judge Heroes 1-4's graphics engines vs Heroes 5's, too. They didn't make it 3D because the game needed or would be better with it, they did it because it's "in".

I simply pointed out that this statement is laughably incorrect. Mount & Blade has fewer features than Pirates!.

Pirates has tons more features than alot of new games, and old ones for that matter. Mount & Blade was actually more directed on the "entertaining" part of sentence you quoted me on, though, while SEV is unequalled, as far as I know, when it comes to features in that type of game.

Are they charging money for the game? Then it's perfectly acceptable to consider the current state as a completed game.

That's a childish conclusion. If they say it isn't done, then it isn't. It's as simple as that. Especially when it still says "beta", with big letters. They're letting us 'pre-order' the game, while also giving us the opportunity to beta test it.

The problem with all those possibilities is that they make a game that's completely unplayable past about turn 40. It's ludicrous to expect people to spend multiple hours per turn on a game that's going to last for 200 more turns.

Not true for my games, at least. What's more, though, SEIV not only offers these features as *options*, i.e. you don't have to use them, but even offers the ability to have the computer take control of any part of the game you don't want to manage. It's an excellent approach, as I see it.

And if it was up to me the game would have even more features, where you want it simpler, judging by your statements. Which shows our completely different takings on games in general, I suppose.

So, basically, what your actual argument is really "The games of today don't match up with my memory of the games that I first played in my youth."

That's a common enough assumption, but I think it's incorrect. I mean, yeah, my memory of the games probably has its influence on the whole thing; but I still play old games, many times a week, and while some of the magic is gone I still think they're great fun to play.

You really don't want to be associated with the people that hold that opinion. They tend to inhabit places like the RPGCodex.

Never been there much. On the 'people' note, though, you seem to be a great fan of lumping them into stereotypes and categories.

Yes, the problem is that you are expecting the modern equivalents of the adventure game to be something other than what they are.

I'm inclined to agree, but the game market has changed alot too, over the last years. It's like developers are now trying to make games that appeal to everyone at the same time, where before developers targeted a more specific audience with their games, which meant deciding which features to include, and making your fans happy, alot easier.

But, I thought that older games had better gameplay. Yet here you are now claiming that Dune 2 has interface problems. It seems that you can't even decide what side of the issue you actually stand on.

I don't have a problem with admitting faults of the games, nor does admitting such in any way somehow put me 'on the other side of the issue'. If anything, the games I like the most are usually the ones I critize the hardest, especially when the sequels doesn't turn out how I wanted them.

You must think that the combat control system for swordfights in Defender of the Crown is amazing, since it's a really old game!

Ah, true, controls have come a long way indeed. Don't we all just love the wasd + mouse style of the 90's?

What possible gameplay improvements would you have received by instead spending those wages on another designer.

Who said it would go to another designer? What about simply not using that money at all, which would mean less time-pressure as there would be less money to regain? Which again would mean there could be additional time for the programmers to A) Implement features they didn't have time for otherwise, or B) Get rid of some of that laughable amount of bugs that games are released with today, since they're all rushed out. Or they could, for example, hire another programmer to do modding tools for the game. There's always something to do, and manpower and time is always at least part of the problem. Money can buy both.

Neither of you are going to convince the other of anything, and the arguement has long since surpassed the point of reiterating what you've already said multiple times.

True, but isn't that the whole point of discussing? I mean, how many times have you seen one side somehow 'convert' the other in a discussion? We're just doing it to waste time. Although, since the thread is actually called 'SE5 screenshots ugly??', I suppose we might be at the wrong location.

[Fyron]

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

Up to a point, then it starts to harm productivity... Look for info on the mythical man-month (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythical_man_month). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

I don't see playing games as a chore. If I have just as much fun when I play that 10 hour game as when I play the 4 hour one( assuming that I'm actually enjoying the games), then obviously I'd like to have fun for as long as possible and would go with the 10 hour game.

The point is that the total fun of that 10 hour game is spread out over more time.
Thus it either has a lower intensity of fun; it has 6 hours of boring mixed in.

[Raapys]

Up to a point, then it starts to harm productivity

I'm very aware that assigning more developers on a project can have the opposite effect than desired, unless you have a really well organized project that can actually support it. Obviously, the completely unplanned "Oh, we're running late, let's throw in 10 more programmers!" idea isn't gonna do much good.

That's where the 'time' part comes in. The more money you have, the less you need to rush the game to avoid getting broke. Where you might not have a good enough organized project to support more than a couple of programmers, time is key.

Having, for instance, alot of artists hired, means you have alot more expenses, thus need to rush the game out sooner to make up for those expenses, unless you're one of those people that have unlimited amount of cash and can delay a game as long as they want. I believe they live in a fantasy world, however.

The point is that the total fun of that 10 hour game is spread out over more time.
Thus it either has a lower intensity of fun; it has 6 hours of boring mixed in.

I didn't talk about 'total fun', though. If you reread what I said, you'd notice the "If I have just as much fun when I play that 10 hour game as when I play the 4 hour one" part, indicating that, while playing the 10 hour game I have e.g. 8 points of fun 'each moment' on a 0-10 scala, while on the 4 hour one I also have 8 points of fun, but those 'moments' are far fewer. Put in a very silly way, since talking about 'fun' in such a way isn't really entirely fitting.

[Fyron]

There is no unless, though. Even the most well-organized project will hit the curve. It may be at a higher point than an unorganized project, but it will happen.

[Suicide Junkie]

I'm just pointing out the way that many others read it, Raapys.

[Raapys]

Okay, if we're gonna nit-pick then let me rephrase "unless you have a really well organized project that can actually support it." to "unless you have a well organized project that can actually support *more*". And, as I mentioned, time is just about always the biggest problem at any rate, and money can buy that too.

So I'm not entirely sure why we're discussing that part.

I'm just pointing out the way that many others read it, Raapys.

Fair enough, glad we could clarify it then.

[JAFisher44]

You want an example of a game focusing on graphics over gameplay? Fine. Call of Duty 2. This game is in fact cut gameplay options from its predecessor. They claimed to have created a new game engine for the game, but that was a load of crap. In reality what they did was port the Quake 2 engine over to XBox 360 and then port it back to PC. They did add a grenade button so you could throw a nade without changing weapons, but they removed so much more. They removed portable machine guns and vehicles. Hell, they even removed the weapon mode select key. They reduced the size of all of the maps except for the smallest ones. They removed the sprint option. Who needs it when you spawn on top of eachother anyway? But the game has better graphics. I am really angry that I wasted 50$ on the game. I still play CoD:UO way more than I play CoD2.

The problem with today's gaming market is that games are designed to look really pretty in screenshots, gameplay be damned. Then the screaming hordes all rush the stores on midnight of the release date an buy every copy available. By the time everyone realizes that they bought crap it is too late. The company has made its money and there is no real need to maintain long term sales. And since a great deal of people are lemmings and dont care about good gameplay there is still a trickle of sales that is just gravy for the developers.

Another example of cutting content exists in The Dawn of War expansion, Winter Assault. However, these cuts weren't even made to allow for graphic enhancements. They were just made so that the game would be easier for the hordes of stupid game players who don't want to be bothered to acutally play a game. I am not going to post an exhaustive list, but an example would be the Space Marine Predator tank, which started with just an autocannon and heavy bolter sponsons and could be upgraded to all lascannons, now it just starts with all lascannons.

[Hunpecked]

Imperator Fyron said:Up to a point, then it starts to harm productivity... Look for info on the mythical man-month (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythical_man_month). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


I've been in the software business long enough to remember reading that book not long after it first came out. Coincidentally, I had occasion to quote it to my current boss about two weeks ago. Amazing what three decades of "progress" won't accomplish. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif