Current state of gaming

[histgamer]

Games getting more expensive is hardly a reason for them to succeed, if anything it's a reason for them to fail. Especially with cheap alternative gaming re-emerging. The gaming industry has always had cheap alternatives but never before has the Free 2 Play and mobile sector posed such a viable alternative to traditional gaming. I don't think mobile will kill big games, hardly, but I do think it narrows their margin for failure, plus YouTube and other outlets allow gamers to become better educated than ever before. In the past a AAA title didn't have to worry about gamers pointing out dozens of game killing bugs, sure there were reviews but not to the extent that there is today, the gaming community while annoying at times allows people to make far more educated choices about their purchases today than ever before which probably makes it harder to make a smash hit today than on the SNES in days gone by.

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Sure, there were a lot of failed games back in the day, but that was when there were no industry standards, software designers were making things up as they went along, and there was very little in the way of hardware compatibility... even computer hardware had to be invented and kept up to speed to match new 3D engines, processor demands, etc. So to me current failures are that much more poignant because they speak more to lack of human insight and creativity rather than just a lack of technology or resources (Daikatana, not withstanding LOL).

We've seen hardware tech/prices level off over the last few years, which has been great for software designers who finally have a chance to settle into working with cpu/gpu/os standards. Budgets have never been bigger for the big studios, some matching the budgets of movie studios even. Add to that the largest fan base gaming has ever had and it just doesn't make sense that something like a Rome 2 could even have a chance at failing.

I agree that we should highlight the recent successes, and there are many. However, to see large A list titles flop is just shocking and to me reveals some serious problems running behind the scenes.

[histgamer]

I also wonder what kind of impact self publishing is having on the industry as a whole. In the past if you wanted to get on a Console or even PC you normally needed a Publisher if you were going to have any measure of success, heck the Scourge of War series got its start as Take Command but it was published by Activation's Value brand. With retail drying up and self publishing far more viable than in the past I have to imagine the strain on big publishers is pretty big. Small groups don't need a big AAA publisher anymore, smaller publishers like Matrix are more viable and if you want to go it alone you can do that too. As a result Value publishing houses likely are suffering pretty bad as they no longer have the leverage they use to and while the value brand likely didn't make a big chunk of money for Activition it's still another revenue stream that's likely all but dried up in recent years as smaller studios see very little benefits to turning over creative control to a huge multi billion dollar corporation.

[Rtwfreak]

As long as devs and publishers can get away with this "No Refund' policy they will continue to make sorry games. Sadly as much as I hate to say this Matrixgames and Slitherine havn't been making very quality games and even the ones we like (Field of Glory and Battle Academy and Distant Worlds) don't have very good ai's. Field of Glory doesn't have an ai to speak of hardly at all. They are promoting playing MP now and personally I bought computers to play an ai not a real person. There's so much cheating going on by real people you lose interest in playing them. But, anyways the real problem is that "No Refund" policy. If/when it comes back then things will change for the better.

The other thing that goes along with the "No Refund" policy is ever since 1995 publishers and devs have been releasing unfinished buggy games. Since they don't have to worry about refunds anymore they can release whatever worthless programming they want. It's free fast money when you really think about it. You can change your name, go out of business and basically start over as someone else without repurcussions. Then consumers have been allowing them to do this all those years because they are impatient and want the games now so they say they will accept an unfinished buggy game with the promise of fixing it. No other consumable that I can think of has ever been accepted like that in the history of mankind. The devil is really working his magic here and the consumenr is accepting it. I was always taught if it's broken you take it back and get your money back until it is fixed not buy it broken and wait for the fixing if you get one. Some games (Pax Romana) never get fixed.

So this is what's wrong with PC gaming in a nutshell. "No Refund" policy and releasing broken unfinished bad games to start with

[histgamer]

I just posted a long response which was pretty thought out but the damn PC deleted it. sigh...

The jist of it was.

No refund policy is an issue but I've seen many games be returned for reasons of technical problems, either refunds through digital download purchases or retail. You run into problems however with games and refunds because its feasible to play an entire game in a day or two and then if you accept returns you basically give away your product free. As a company you're setting yourself up for failure if you offer full refunds for non technical reasons.

AI isn't poor on all matrix games, SOW it's excellent, PC it's not bad imho (or maybe the scenarios are just heavily biased against you which I'm not sure) WiTPAE has a great AI for the first year and a half or so but the games so complex its likely not possible to have a great Ai, ai is the hardest thing to code most likely and thus more complex wargames are always going to struggle deeper into the game, maybe it's an excuse, but it's also a fact, the more dynamic the game the less likely you're going to get a perfect game and if you're waiting for the perfect AI on a game like AE you'll likely never see the game released.

Game companies can't release total crap anymore. Technology means word gets around about terrible games and that does impact sales. You act like the consumer has no choice and that's flat out wrong, YouTube and other technological developments also happen to coincide with tons of game publishers going under or struggling. Sure sub standard products still get released but more and more you're going to see that dramatically hinder sales figures and eventually games are going to get better because of this, or the publishers will go out of business. With that said no game will be bug free, they never have been, games in the 80s were often buggy messes just as much as today, technology just lets us have a more dramatic view of the flops today. Fact is no technology tested by 200 testers for a year will work out all the bugs that 1,2,3 million players might run into. That's why the early beta testing is so popular for developers, sure you can say the game releases half finished BUT the gamers know the game isn't done yet and its a trade off between letting the community get involved in the development (good thing) and releasing a product that people still find problems in because its not possible to fully test.

[SuluSea]

I believe the last game I purchased was Don to the Danube. I'm probably going to buy War in the West once they get the kinks ironed out and have interest in Heroes of Stalingrad if that's ever released. Other than those two I have little interest in anything else.

I'd love to see something centered on naval action but developers seem to steer away from those for some reason.

[DSWargamer]

Just because something can be made, is not enough reason to do it.

That is perhaps a key problem in some products. The person providing the product believed in it, but the reality was it had limited real worth.

Real worth is a subjective condition though, and you usually only get the proof after it is too late to employ hindsight.

As for AI, the problem with AI, is the brutal fact that the AI is NOT thinking. Sorry boys, but there is no looming Terminator world or Matrix reality on your horizon just yet.

Because the AI is not actually 'thinking' it is merely coping with a rigid selection of choices and processing the choice rapidly, as a result of machine advantage. But it will not be actually 'thinking'. And while so much of humanity sure seems closer to AI in terms of stupid actions, it's still possible.

And I have seen comments over the years, of how humans have made a total mockery of some wargames limitations all because they were capable of that one action... thinking. They realized something was possible, that the game maker never realized at the time, and then exploited it all out of proportion and in the process destroyed the challenge level of the game. The interesting thing is the idea never works against another human, because unlike the AI, the other person was able to think as well.

Every time I see a game released with no hotseat mode, I want to facepalm. Because that is the same as the game maker truly thinking their AI is so shythot the human couldn't possibly need another human to play the game. I've walked away from several good games, all because the game requires the other human to make it worth the time. VS he AI the game is often too much like kicking puppies.

The recent release of Germany at War - Barbarossa 1941 is a good example. Against another human, you are in for a real treat, against the AI, your time will be a waste of it. And it has no hotseat mode, so my interest in it is divided. Excellent design, but I play too many of my games solo by choice. And if I can't play a computer game the same way I play a board game, chances are I won't own it.

The only computer game currently routinely kicking my butt vs the AI is Battle Academy. And that is likely I am just playing too aggressively and not being careful enough. Once you have played most of the BA scenarios though, and have an idea what comes from where and when, the AI is routinely a lot easier to beat up. Against a fellow human though, you are not going to be so lucky.

[wodin]

CK and CK2 was the last game that really did something different. Huge applause for Paradox for trying and succeeding in doing something new and unique.

[TheGrayMouser]

I too wonder why many current releases have no hotseat mode, especially since PBEm and slithertrixs PBEM++ are usually in place, is it that hard to add an additional mode in?
Its the lack of hotseat that has turned me away from games like legion, chariots at war, Commander WW1 etc.

[wodin]

I've never played any game hotseat..it's something I expect only old boardgamers will bother with so has limited appeal. Not sure I can mentally divide my mind for it.

COmmand Ops is a good example of an decent AI..and if they can do it then others can..it's just a case really of lazy or neglected coding. I must be really awful at games as AI's routinely kicks my ....I also don't play the same game\scenario over and over again to work out what an AI does..no game holds my attention long enough. Saying that when I have played a game PBEM I can never go back to the AI..but I hate being ttied to a game and so end up resenting it and so never play it again..so playing PBEM has in the end ruined the game for me. SO now I never play multiplayer..what you don't know you don't miss.

[Boomer78]

Definitely CK2. While itself a sequel and based partly on the EU engine, the dynasty and politics mechanics inside the game made it a blast. I still play CK2 quite a bit. Sadly, it will also probably be my last Paradox game since they are now going Steam exclusive.

When it comes to innovation, game studios are always either doing the tried and true method or going the route of 'well let's throw some stuff at the wall and see what sticks'.

I'm ok with been there done that approach or the brand new pioneering stuff... it's all good. The deadly sin that so many studios commit though is putting out a game that doesn't work. Old, new, makes no difference. It has to function as it is intended. With the recent release of Rome 2, we see that all the millions spent on promotion and name recognition can't do squat for your company if no one around has a vision for what should be accomplished.

Plus there's the old adage that familiarity breeds contempt. Perhaps some of these franchises are just too long in the tooth and need to be put out to pasture.

[catwhoorg]

Whilst not hard core wargames, my wife and I frequently hotseat a Civ game or something like Heroes of Might and Magic.

Especially on a laptop in an airport of when flying.

Its not a dealbreaker not to have, but its a huge positive to me.

[Rtwfreak]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I've never played any game hotseat..it's something I expect only old boardgamers will bother with so has limited appeal. Not sure I can mentally divide my mind for it.

COmmand Ops is a good example of an decent AI..and if they can do it then others can..it's just a case really of lazy or neglected coding. I must be really awful at games as AI's routinely kicks my ....I also don't play the same game\scenario over and over again to work out what an AI does..no game holds my attention long enough. Saying that when I have played a game PBEM I can never go back to the AI..but I hate being ttied to a game and so end up resenting it and so never play it again..so playing PBEM has in the end ruined the game for me. SO now I never play multiplayer..what you don't know you don't miss.

I have to agree with you there, I've play PBEM and MP games over the internet and hated both of them. A couple of the PBEM games turned into cheaters or people who took forever to make a move if they were losing and the MP games took too long for someone to make their move. So for me I'll always come back to solo play vs the computer no matter how bad it is at least I'm aware of any cheating and how often it does it and how long a turn is going to take. Sorry but PBEM or MP isn't the beall endall of wargaming.

I didn't say every game matrixgames or slitherine made were bad I just said they were losing quality over the years....how old is Admiral Edition of Pacific War?? Distant Worlds isn't that old nor are some of the others I mentioned. I'm just saying PC programming is getting progressively worse not better. Surely you can't give kudos to Close combat remakes ai or Field of Glory or even Panzer Corps that ole dog don't bark with me. There's a few as I said with quality works and ai's but the majority of the catalog isn't. I see fanboyism coming out in you and I can't discuss or reason with a fanboy who does nothing but make excuses for their favorite company Flan.

And where do you get off bugs and flaws are accepted, I don't except them, never have and that is why I will never buy PC software at full retail ever again. Even Matrixgames and slitherine games I wait until the christmas sale to buy anything and anything I can get online cheaper I will, thank god for ebay and amazon and Poland. Just because you are willing to shell out free money to them I'm not.

[DSWargamer]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

Whilst not hard core wargames, my wife and I frequently hotseat a Civ game or something like Heroes of Might and Magic.

Especially on a laptop in an airport of when flying.

Its not a dealbreaker not to have, but its a huge positive to me.

Actually I have found that hotseat in those two games is quite fun.

As for AI in Panther Games' products I would say it is likely more the game's method that appeals to me. The command and control hierarchy punishing the usual mouse click frenzy approach is what makes the game 'credible'.

I think it odd a person would consider the Slitherine Group's multiplayer a bad thing, personally I think the Slitherine Group's superb multiplayer environment is one of the best things to happen to wargaming in a long time.

[histgamer]

NvM, not even worth it.

[balto]

The current state of wargaming is freaking awesome. Picking out the right one is the hard part because of the marketing and the large amount of choices. To me, I think nothing of blowing several hundred $$ a year for this awesome hobby. The entertainment cost per hour works about to be like $.50 to $1 an hour!! What I hate is the time I waste in determining if a game is a stinker, but that is part of the process.

Distant Worlds and Europa Universalis IV AI are freaking GREAT and there are obviously others great AIs. I love PC wargaming much more now than before - the market is just much more flooded with crap and you have to wade through that to find the gems.

[Gilmer]

I think they dumb down the AI so that the majority of people don't start complaining "The AI is too hard!!!" You know you'd have those people. Hell, sometimes I even think the AI is too hard. But I won't complain about it. I just either keep trying or go to another game. The reason I love the Ageod community and the Matrix community is that they very rarely complain the AI is too hard. Sometimes they claim the AI is cheating which to me is an important difference.

Between Matrix and Ageod and the occasional other game (like Skyrim and games like that) I don't have much time. The games I have right now could keep me occupied for 150 years, if I could live that long.

I guess in a way I'm "fortunate" that I love all types of computer games. I love racing games, strategic warfare games, shooters, RPGs, etc. I even still play EQ on the emu server.

[bo]

Very good posts here, I do not usually post in this area, I post mostly on MWIF forums. It sounds like a few people are depressed by the quality of games that Matrix is selling lately, not blaming Matrix, I did a post on demos or lack of them and got shot down because Matrix said they are not needed.

I sincerely hope this frustration will be diminished with the release of MWIF, it is truly an awesome game, not for everyone though as it has a steep learning curve, there are plenty of beer and pretzel games around, quick, fast, with real decisions and thinking not allowed, just kidding. This is a game that with almost every move you have to consider the consequences of that move. More later if anyone cares to hear more about the game.

We are also looking for beta testers to finalize this brilliant game

Bo

Beta tester, Matrix World in Flames

[wodin]

H Gilmer I agree..AI in certain games takes me down.

I wouldn't want them to get rid of mulitplayer..but it def isn't for me. Makes the game no fun in the end..you never get to play it long enough to get into it esp PBEM so it just becomes a chore.

[Boomer78]

I made this thread, but I didn't mean in any way for it to be a knock against Matrix, but rather a discussion on gaming as a whole. While I've had my issues with a Matrix released game.. or two... I find that strategy/war games to be one of the last genres that aren't being 'consoled' to death. Gaming has exploded in popularity over the last few years, to the point that its profits now rival Hollywood's, so it's sad to see companies take the path of the quick buck so often. What is often the quick fix now becomes the cancerous symptom later.

[Agathosdaimon]

absolutely, i certainly didnt think this was aimed at matrix and in my gaming experiences matrix and the companies involved Matrix has been really where its at for fun, intelligent wargaming.
With the recent release of Rome Total War 2 I decided to just look around at what other games have come out this year -I really havent been paying attention and was just assuming that many of the big games i heard and saw ads in passing for were out and doing fine with whatever their market is, but metacritc and amazon reviews seem to show a confusing picutre - the games Aliens Colonial Marines, Company of Heroes 2, Diablo 3 all have good critic reviews on the whole, but the user reviews are overwhelmingly negative, in fact i have never seen any game on amazon with some more bad reviews as Diablo 3 - Over 1700 at 1 star and over 600 at 5 stars.
I am just really surprised that such big name games seem to be regarded as so terrible for countless not insubstantial reasons. I noticed Sega's name is associated with quite a few of these, what is their involvement exactly, in say, CA's production process - with so many complaints being that the games seem unfinished is Sega somehow involved in rushing the developers? I dont know how this all works honestly.
Of course i am not saying these games represent the state of the whole industry at all but rather just how is it that this can be happening at all?