Current state of gaming

[Boomer78]

I'm not sure how much of these faults are SEGA's responsibility, but it is one huge coincidence that SEGA was great when they were making consoles and having fun running around with blue hedgehogs. When they decided to stop making consoles and get into the entertainment software business, it all started going downhill... very fast downhill... and with no coins left. I suppose SEGA always had ambitions to become a corporate version of Dr. Robotnik. In that they succeeded wonderfully. The world is now awash in their mutated, mechanical monstrosities.

[Qwixt]

I consider the metacritic scores to be useless, even for the so called professional reviews. In order for a review to be useful, you need to read it, and see what the reviewer doesn't like. Because many times, I've seen games get panned for stuff I do not care about, which is especially true for me when the review rants about multiplayer.

The user scores are a complete joke because the disgruntled and disillusioned players start threads to crying for people to go give negative feedback to show the man and fight back. This happens more frequently on titles with lots of history because no game could meet their expectations. It kind of mimics the politics of today in that things are completely binary and polar. A game gets 1 or 10. I have seen where the reverse happens because some fans of games try to get people to do the opposite.

[sweeteye]

This is an interesting thread with many interesting posts...Thought I would put in my two cents worth.I have been an avid wargamer for more than forty years and have watched the development year by year.To me computer simulations of wargames are highly overrated...I do own many PC wargames from some of the earliest titles to the very latest and have found them all interesting but lacking in one department..Artificial Intelligence.....Of course some are better than others but for me they still all are lacking to some degree...Of course I have not nearly played them all as there are just so many titles available.I do have enough of an interest in computer wargames to have tried my hand at coding my own games but have failed at it horribly....this has given me a healthy respect for those who do code games successfully as I found out first hand what a challenge it can be....I imagine as time goes on AI will become better and I look forward to it...Right now I really lean towards moving counters myself on a table top board and rolling dice...To me there is something I like about being able to touch the pieces I am playing with.....I guess what it really comes down to is to each his own though.

[Gilmer]

@Wodin, I have tried PBEM but it seemed unsatisfying, because it does not go fast enough for me, and I think my opponents found it unsatisfying because I don't really think I'm much of a challenge.

@Boomer78 Regarding Hollywood. Good observation. Games are going the way of Hollywood in many cases, because Hollywood loves remaking movies and doing sequels because let's face it, some new, different movie has to have a lot of money spent advertising it, but with Ironman 3, how much do you really have to advertise? Everyone knows what it is going to be about, Robert Downey, Jr, making wisecracks and flying around in armor beating up bad guys.

Same with games. Mass Effect 2 and 3. How much do they really need to advertise for that? All they have to do is let the people know when it is going on sale, and the ones that liked the 1st one which was successful, run out and buy #2 and #3.

[Boomer78]

Indeed. Reminds me of that bit Lewis Black did about corporate advertising. He was wondering why companies like Coke and Pepsi even bother spending money on advertising, instead they should just give Americans some cash to try their products. He was like, 'Hi, we're Coke. Here's 10 dollars. Try our shit.'

[DSWargamer]

I think they dumb down the AI so that the majority of people don't start complaining "The AI is too hard!!!"

Not saying I agree with that, but I am also willing to say it would not surprise me. We live in a world where gamers expect guide books, cheat codes, walk throughs and god modes.

I come from a time when it was no tutorial, it was a game that had a manual and the interface was your eyesight looking at a board that had counters on it You mastered the manual, because you either did, or nothing happened.

I am not pointing a finger at any demographic, as I think everyone has gotten lazy from 6 to 60.

I like the Slitherine Group multiplayer set up as it is effortless. Log in, accept challenge or offer one, and start playing a game. PBEM to me suggests play a turn, send turn hope the opponent is prompt. I prefer play a turn, hit send, get a turn back automated near instantly almost as if the person was present in the room. Nice thing is I don't need to wash my hair this way

The person can always have 3+ games of Battle Academy in play at the same time if they dislike waiting, and in the process, always be processing a turn for several hours of great gaming. But it is the environment of the multiplayer processing at Slitherine Group making it work. I have played other games in the past where something always spoiled the experience. Slitherine Group has simply licked the problem in this case.

You'd need to actually specifically hate a game to not enjoy multiplayer from something via Slitherine Groups multiplayer matching.

Some games of course, they are not 'ideal' candidates. A turn of Battle Academy is going to take you about 5 minutes if not less. A turn of War in the East is going to take as long as a turn of Fire in the East. You WILL need something else to be doing while playing that multiplayer.

Some games worked great as board games, and might just be incapable of being a computer option.
Great as ASL or A3R are, I don't think I want to play that via computer multiplayer. The design needs too much in the way of subtle player interactive response. I have avoided taking the plunge with VASL or Warplanner for that reason. I might be wrong though.

[Rtwfreak]

I think MP in a game should be DLC you should only have to buy it if you want it and if you play it. Same with a PBEM system. Those savings should be past on to those customers that don't play it. Why should I have to pay for the programming of something I don't play. It could be the same in reverse make games that are MP only or PBEM only and sell everything individually, solo game, MP game, PBEM game and let the consumer have choices and decide. I think the publishers and developers could make more money this way instead of this content they are milking us for now. I personally won't buy any DLC cause I don't buy scenarios and such I buy full games only. But, I might be tempted to buy a MP pak or a PBEM pak if somebody else was willing to play those and wasn't a cheat.

That's the big problem with MP and PBEM systems, I don't care how well they are made (somebody is going to cheat) thus I dont usually play MP or PBEM. I once was playing a group in Age of Empires when all of a sudden her came police cars and tanks totally ruining what was turning out to be a great experience. Just takes 1 to ruin it for the whole. I never played another MP game since...I dabble in PBEM but I've experienced the same in those as well. Until they make a system in the clouds whereby nobody can muck with the game (meaning cheat) then I will not play MP or much PBEM.

[Boomer78]

Some people talked me into playing some DayZ, the zombie mod for Arma 2. Uh yeah, so after a few days of hiding out in the woods and choosing between starving to death or getting sniped in Cherno, I decided on getting the single player offline version of the DayZ mod... simply called 'DaiZy'.

MP is such a frustrating thing these days, because about 80% of the people on servers are there ALL THE TIME, and they make popping your cherry on a new game very discouraging (I had to learn about spawn campers the hard way). I don't have as much time to play games as I used to, so playing online with twitchy immature 18 yr olds just doesn't cut the mustard any more. There comes a point in every man's life when he needs to put down his old toys and let the new kids play around with them.

It seems every generation has its grasping limits with technology. My step dad loved Atari but just couldn't handle anything past the NES. Me, I had consoles all the way up to the current line, but have zero interest in Kinect or bio-dome finger butt scanners or whatever the hell else they do now for game interaction. And Oculus? Forget it. No way am I letting someone turn me into the retarded lawn mower man who lives in his basement hooked up to a VR helmet and a Mountain Dew vending machine. We're not robots, we're also not gerbils. Sometimes ya just gotta go outside and play in the mud, feel human again before going back in and returning your body parts to the hive.

[DSWargamer]

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

I think MP in a game should be DLC you should only have to buy it if you want it and if you play it. Same with a PBEM system. Those savings should be past on to those customers that don't play it. Why should I have to pay for the programming of something I don't play. It could be the same in reverse make games that are MP only or PBEM only and sell everything individually, solo game, MP game, PBEM game and let the consumer have choices and decide. I think the publishers and developers could make more money this way instead of this content they are milking us for now. I personally won't buy any DLC cause I don't buy scenarios and such I buy full games only. But, I might be tempted to buy a MP pak or a PBEM pak if somebody else was willing to play those and wasn't a cheat.

That's the big problem with MP and PBEM systems, I don't care how well they are made (somebody is going to cheat) thus I dont usually play MP or PBEM. I once was playing a group in Age of Empires when all of a sudden her came police cars and tanks totally ruining what was turning out to be a great experience. Just takes 1 to ruin it for the whole. I never played another MP game since...I dabble in PBEM but I've experienced the same in those as well. Until they make a system in the clouds whereby nobody can muck with the game (meaning cheat) then I will not play MP or much PBEM.

Hmm an interesting notion, and I am ok letting it stand as a reasonable request if enough actually wished it. Not sure if the time spent to make a game possess multiplayer though is even remotely on par with the effort to design an AI. But, I already know how many would freak out if an AI was a separate purchase

I understand the cheat concerns. The first incarnation of Strategic Command, a game I think is incredible, was SO easy to cheat with, that only a complete dolt couldn't actually do it. And anyone that couldn't figure it out, likely wasn't bright enough to win even with the cheating.

Now on the other hand, the primary reason I like Battle Academy is how cheating is not an option. You play your turn, you hit send, it happens and their is no file changing hands. You can't reload and reload and reload. You get the turn sent to you, and you either play it or you don't. As a result, I have experienced considerable games via that system, and in every case, if the player was doing poorly, their only alternative was to bow out. And generally if you get a rep for doing that often, well you also kill your chances of getting any more offers too.

But I understand your dislike with multiplayer as a rule as the game world is not going to be all the same as here at Slitherine Group. Hacks and cheats and all that sort of thing tend to poison a game. And we have all heard about games that were spoiled because someone had wrecked the fun. I don't normally play most of the games that suffer from it. Those are usually mob games where it is considerable sums of players all playing together. Some people just can't cope with not being better than the other person. A human flaw.

I have lost as many games of Battle Academy as I have won. But they were all because the other player just played a bit better than me that game. When I win, it is because that time I was better.

But like I said, I can't really know what would be involved with making multiplayer a separate purchasable design. But, I DO know that in a lot of cases a game was only delayed due to a need to force an AI into the design. I personally would be ok with multiplayer being a separate expense, but I most assuredly would also like the AI to be a separate purchase.

No one wants to pay extra all so they can play the idiot AI. I'd rather they knocked 20% off the price of most wargames, made them sans AI in the base release, and required me to either be both sides like with my board games, or have my other human opponent visit me and we could play it on a single machine.

I tend to prefer to play Strategic Command this way. I play a turn, I resolve turn, I get up and my friend sits and plays there turn. All the fun of A3R, but without the problem of where to set up the board.

Now, if you refuse to find an opponent, isn't that the same as refusing to do anything else that limits you? Why should the rest of the hobby be forced to be made to endure your own personal limitations?

I have broadband internet, because I decided I needed it. I don't have a car though, but I prefer to walk. I DO have local friends I can wargame with. And when it comes to available time, hey, if it is important to you, you make the time.

[wodin]

DS thats fine if you have a mate who likes wargames and is at the house, I'd do that myself (Not one offline mate of mine throughout my life has been a wargamer or into wargames, well I tell a lie I had a mate when I was 11 who had Squad Leader..but he went to a different high school and we lost touch after that))... I agree with you on many things but not the AI issue..I honestly don't feel like AI's are all idiots. Many give me a challenge and I can play aslong or as quickly as I want to in one sitting. That for e is the beauty of an AI..play when you want for aslong as you want..take a break whenever you wan. Maybe if I find a game I really really love and know I could play everyday for a year I'd go for it..sadly that doesn't happen for me anymore.

I don't think an AI or Muliplayer should be a separate purchase..but I do get annoyed at multiplayer only games..always strikes me as the developer is too lazy and wants the game out ASAP.

[pmelheck1]

Something to remember is that games are very much a subjective area. Something I think is the best thing I've ever played you may think is a steaming pile and the opposite can hold true. Also our expectations as gamers in some cases are now set so high they can't ever be met. Even with a time machine and being on the actual battle field we would still gripe. Specs that we would have adored years to even months or weeks ago are now no longer adequate as an offering in the game. Seen it, what have you done for me TODAY. We used to argue that the data behind the game was important but now we want more accurate data, a better user interface, flashy graphics, features never seen before in any game ever and we want it in half the size and if their is so much as a singe bug the programer and company are the worst and should never be allowed to make anything else on the computer ever. At times it seems to me we have become much more cynical and negative towards any game. And no not with justification as some will claim. Their seems to be a overall general move in the negative direction even on these boards from years ago it seems. Some good stuff has been done but we seem to overlook the good in our rush to condemn the latest game titles released.

We seem to be at an point where the technology just may not be up to what we want under the hood and isn't going to be for a while if ever. Unfortunately the average gamer doesn't care about the AI in the slightest if it in any way prevents EVERY DROPLET OF BLOOD FROM SPLATTERING ON THE WALL BEHIND THE TARGET. On this forum at times it's not graphics but rather multiplayer that must be done even at the expense of all else. If a program has multiplayer it's either broken (even if it's not) or NEEDS TO BE ADDED NOW!

I can sometimes forgive a not great game for a company or programmer's first try as this is how we learn and some of those game are indeed gems but if some had their way nothing new would be ever be done and when a old rehashs fail they would never do another one.

Sorry but these why does everything always suck threads just get to me

And yes this is how I really feel[:'(]

[Boomer78]

I don't think this is a 'everything always sucks thread' at all. Two pages in and we've already discussed AI, pricing models, MP, and game design. Seems pretty constructive and free-flowing, if ya ask me. Why is that a positive frame of mind conjures the idea of the placated cow chewing on its cud, while a negative or 'constructive criticism' one makes people think of a grouchy know-it-all?

As far as your comment on demand vs capabilities, I agree. Tech has certainly reached a bottleneck with what we can do with it... at least in the entertainment industry. My beef with that is the hype rarely if ever equals or exceeds the reality. A bottle opener should never be promoted by its company that it will do your taxes for you or change the oil in your car. On that same note, a game should not be promoted by its parent company to do things that it is not capable of doing. Does anyone remember Jurassic Park: Trespasser? If so, that pleads my case for me. We are at a crossroads with gaming, and I think gaming studios should give their consumers the benefit of the doubt in being intelligent enough to make their own informed choices without shoving fake Hollywood crap down their throats in order to make another sale. How many times have we seen those same glossy action packed trailers for games, then the release version shows a completely different animal? Just don't dick me around. If you offer an apple to sell, then sell an apple. Don't paint it yellow and and tell me it's a banana.

[wodin]

mullk I agree with boomer this isn't a full on negative thread.As Boomer says lots of interesting posts here. Also constructive criticism pushes games further and improves them in the long run. A major issue I think for us gamers that have been playing game son a computer of some sorts since the early to mid eighties is that we were alot younger then..we had no idea how things where done..it all seemed to magical and my imagination used to run riot playing the games totally oblivious to the restrictions of tech and what could and couldn't be done. Now I feel we are given too much info..esp on games being developed so that when it comes to playing them you pretty much know exactly what is going to happen and what it's like..as every bit has been dissected in either developer diaries or endless previews. This I feel leads to an anti climax once released as you realise that there are no surprises and you've been swamped in info on the game for months so it hardly feels new.

Some great games have been released recently and some contenders being developed. So things are OK at the moment. I just think few are pushing the limits like they did in the early days. Can you imagine what we'd get if developers starting pushing the limits in a similar fashion as they did back in the 8bit days.

I suppose really I should buckle down and learn to program..with the aim of getting my game designs up and running and being played.

[histgamer]

Woodin that's definitely a new way to think about developer diaries. I've always thought of them strictly as a positive way to show whats being worked on and generate hype but never thought of the idea of knowing to much.

I do agree there is a lot less mystery in games but I think dev diaries are a good way for smaller companies to get people exposed to the game who might not otherwise have heard of it. I think a lot of the mystery and excitement in games today comes from the modding field. Like it or not the DayZ mod provided something totally unexpected and exciting to many gamers who otherwise never would have gotten Arma2 and even something totally new for those who did, the original RTW was ok but the mods made it truly epic and exciting and unique, the same can probably be said for some of the mods of CK2 and also definitely with Kerbel Space Program.

Imagination it seems is not being fulfilled AS MUCH through the core game as it is through what people add to the game. That's just my 2 cents but that surely seems true to me.

ORIGINAL: wodin

mullk I agree with boomer this isn't a full on negative thread.As Boomer says lots of interesting posts here. Also constructive criticism pushes games further and improves them in the long run. A major issue I think for us gamers that have been playing game son a computer of some sorts since the early to mid eighties is that we were alot younger then..we had no idea how things where done..it all seemed to magical and my imagination used to run riot playing the games totally oblivious to the restrictions of tech and what could and couldn't be done. Now I feel we are given too much info..esp on games being developed so that when it comes to playing them you pretty much know exactly what is going to happen and what it's like..as every bit has been dissected in either developer diaries or endless previews. This I feel leads to an anti climax once released as you realise that there are no surprises and you've been swamped in info on the game for months so it hardly feels new.

Some great games have been released recently and some contenders being developed. So things are OK at the moment. I just think few are pushing the limits like they did in the early days. Can you imagine what we'd get if developers starting pushing the limits in a similar fashion as they did back in the 8bit days.

I suppose really I should buckle down and learn to program..with the aim of getting my game designs up and running and being played.

[wodin]

Well dev diaries probably are good for PR..I just wish they held back a few features. These days you get given all the info down to the smallest detail.

I agree modding is what makes PC gaming unique and unbeatable..I think where it's possible all games should be released with modding tools.