277 replies to this topic

[Card]

One word: Money.

When massive amounts of money are required to produce a title, then lots of investors get a say in the title. Games are designed by committee, marketed to the lowest common denominator, and must cater to an existing audience to be certain of a return on investment.

Games used to be made by obsessed people with a vision. Money takes the vision out of everything.

[Particle Man]

The short answer to the question is:
Consoles.

the long answer:
Cooooooonnnnnnnssssssooooooolllllleeeesssss

[nektu]

Melcyna, on 20 August 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Supreme Commander is basically just Total Annihilation with better looking engine... TA based free games or otherwise been around for a long time now because A LOT of ppl liked TA.

The concept itself is effectively unchanged from TA, in fact it's essentially identical down to the T except for unit list.

I stand corrected. I forgot about it because I never played TA.

Melcyna, on 20 August 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

If the concept appeals, then Planetary Annihilation is essentially the kickstarter project made by the members of the original Total Annihilation developer among others.

http://www.kickstart...-generation-rts



Essentially Total Annihilation with inter planetary battlefield.

Hmmmhmm. I cackeled when they put the engines on that asteroid

Gingo, on 20 August 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

They still are the best. Just not the most popular.

Yea, I like them too.

Edited by nektu, 21 August 2012 - 12:11 AM.

[OneThousandNoms]

Well, another reason could be that nowadays terrible games can afford to have great advertisements and the like, whereas in the past, a lot of advertisements were carried out by other players, or were only affordable to larger developers.

[Laki]

I think the quality of games in last few years declined mostly because game developers stopped making games for gamers and started to make games for general population in order to make more money by widening their target market.

There are some that are still out there, but overall i think the OP statement is true.

[Bansheedragon75]

Melcyna, on 20 August 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

Virtual Machine

usually necessary for older applications and certainly necessary for all 16bit applications which simply will not run in Win7 otherwise.

DosBox for example is a virtual machine... emulating dos condition inside the virtual environment.

looking around i found this for System Shock 2


so it looks like you don't even need VM for SS2, which makes sense i guess... the game was at least designed during windows era.

The thing is that what you quoted, only works if you have the Original CD with the gem.
What I have are just a digitally downloaded version.
I did get to work, but it freezes about 2 minutes into the game no matter what.

I decided to buy the game again, a good classic like that game is worth the money.
Only cost around £50, which is still about the average price for most games I think.

[Pershaw]

Dragonlord, on 20 August 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

I recently downloaded and installed this good old classic.
But I have problems getting it to run properly.

I can start it fine and start a new game, but it freezes or locks up after 2-3 minutes and I'm at a loss as to how to fix it.
Been running in compatibility mode for Win XP, which seems to be the only way to get it running at all.

Dont suppose anyone here knows how to get this thing running properly?

Try this version: http://www.systemsho...php?topic=211.0 I've used it before in win vista/win 7.

[Raledon]

Reasons for games taking a nosedive:
1) Costs: if in 1995 it took a couple of years and a 10,000$ budget to produce a "super game"(+bug fixes/balance patches), now to produce a game with the same quality, you'll have to budget it to 10,000,000$ with a 3 years of work and (probably) extra support over time (dlcs, content-patches etc..). This means that instead of 1,000 games a year, which 99.9% of which sucks (but we still get a woopin 10 good games a year!), we get a hundred games of which only 95% suck. Sounds better? Not really, 10>5 is not a hard math. (Do note, I made the numbers up).
A company that once took risk could lose a little bit and move on. Now in order to be competetive it's an all or nothing game, so you better throw the dice well. This usually means either a mass fanbase appeal (the remake of MDK2 and Baldurs Gate are an example), or taking a good, known idea such as shooters.

2) Community grown up: we played doom. We played doom 2. We expect doom 3 to take doom 2 and be better. Problem is, can the producer get up to our expectation? If the first game was a legend, the 3rd will have to be as well in order for us not to be disappointed.
Another way to look at it, if each game/movie (works there as well) has 50% chance to be good, some of the good ones will have a followup game. It has 50% chance to be good as well, so most likely, it will be bad. If it goes well, the 3rd (if any) will again have 50% chance to be good, and so on. That's the reason we have so few games reaching to high numbers (MW:4, Heroes 6, Might and magic 9, final fantasy 14 etc.). These usually hit a spot an stick with it with very small deviation.

3) Games quality: First of all, I agree. Games taking a nosedive is true, and it irks me to no end that people call Mass Effect and GTA (medicore+ games at most to my mind) game of the year and such. Without getting into it, I do feel that the standards were lowered, and watching giant reviewers such as Gamespot and IGN giving away high numbers to **** (Endless Space(8), Star control 3(9)) compared to very good games (SoTS 1(8)) only discredit the site to me, and shows the taste of the general populace.
With this, I will suggest a couple of games that came out since 2004, with some taste: Psyconauts. While it might not receive any award, it's a fun and innovative game, and should be played by anyone. And Bastion. If you didn't play it, go do so. These game have my hopes.

4) Buggy games: Nothing new here. Master of Magic, which to many is one of the leading 4X games of all time (mostly the fantasy based), came out as a buggy, civ clone/wannbe 4x game. After a few patches which got it working, the game got it's current standing (to my taste) as the best 4X game out there, beating MoO2.
This shows you that buggy software+patching is not something new, though it certainly unacceptable as there is no reason for it.

[Melcyna]

Dragonlord, on 21 August 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

The thing is that what you quoted, only works if you have the Original CD with the gem.
What I have are just a digitally downloaded version.
I did get to work, but it freezes about 2 minutes into the game no matter what.

I decided to buy the game again, a good classic like that game is worth the money.
Only cost around £50, which is still about the average price for most games I think.

???
why does the digitally downloaded version fails to work through VM?

unless you mean there's some sort of special DRM mechanism that doesn't work under the older windows environment...

a VM containing a Win 95/98 is not actually any different than an actual separate computer running Win 95/98, the only difference is that in the VM case you are emulating the computer with your real OS in the background.

edit:
Hmmmm, i reread it again ... and i understand it a bit better this time in context... so you are referring to the forced installation and patch method.

The same procedure would apply still regardless of your format, ie:either digitally downloaded or original CD.

The only difference is what packaging tools they use in the digital version.

So for instance with our case: if you have the digital version, you bypass step 1 to 2, and install it through your digital version package whatever it might be. And then apply the SS2 fixes after it's installed. Regardless if it's the digital download or original version, the end result in the installation assets are the same thing, except possibly with different path.

Edited by Melcyna, 21 August 2012 - 08:55 PM.

[BMRX]

Particle Man, on 20 August 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

The short answer to the question is:
Consoles.

the long answer:
Cooooooonnnnnnnssssssooooooolllllleeeesssss

This is a terrible answer, there is nothing wrong with consoles you my good sir probably have no clue as to why you dislike consoles.

[SakuranoSenshi]

BMRX, on 21 August 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

This is a terrible answer, there is nothing wrong with consoles you my good sir probably have no clue as to why you dislike consoles.

Agreed, I missed that.

Bad 'console ports' have soured my opinion of some IPs but a bad port is a bad port, no matter from what to what and I did moan a bit at the simplification of controls in some series that I have enjoyed for a long time, done clearly to make it possible for a console to control but my main gripe was that they could have expanded the system for PC users and still had the console version in place for them.

[BMRX]

SakuranoSenshi, on 21 August 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

Agreed, I missed that.

Bad 'console ports' have soured my opinion of some IPs but a bad port is a bad port, no matter from what to what and I did moan a bit at the simplification of controls in some series that I have enjoyed for a long time, done clearly to make it possible for a console to control but my main gripe was that they could have expanded the system for PC users and still had the console version in place for them.

Indeed, though I do not mind the simplified controls of hack n slash games... Nope, not at all.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Well, they were always going to be simple, really. However, myself, my sister and various of our friends were disappointed with the changes Bethesda made to Oblivion, as compared to earlier games, for example.

[BMRX]

I wish I knew what you were talking about. But Oblivion was the first Elder Scrolls game I ever played on a console. I'm guessing it was disappointing, which does not surprise me with how disappointing oblivion looked... Don't get me wrong, I still loved oblivion and put hours upon hours of time into it.

I should really go and play dagger fall again....Right after a skyrim session.

[SakuranoSenshi]

I like Oblivion, I actually got into it more than I did with Morrowind, in fact, but Daggerfall is hard to beat. Of course, now, it looks horrible! Someone calculated that making all its assets into 3D would be a monumental (like couple of years) task which explains why we don't see games on the same scale.

[BMRX]

I'm always disappointed with necromancy in the elder scrolls series I keep wishing for more..

I don't think I'd want to see daggerfall recreated in anyway.

Edited by BMRX, 21 August 2012 - 10:43 PM.

[Bansheedragon75]

Melcyna, on 21 August 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

???
why does the digitally downloaded version fails to work through VM?

unless you mean there's some sort of special DRM mechanism that doesn't work under the older windows environment...

a VM containing a Win 95/98 is not actually any different than an actual separate computer running Win 95/98, the only difference is that in the VM case you are emulating the computer with your real OS in the background.

edit:
Hmmmm, i reread it again ... and i understand it a bit better this time in context... so you are referring to the forced installation and patch method.

The same procedure would apply still regardless of your format, ie:either digitally downloaded or original CD.

The only difference is what packaging tools they use in the digital version.

So for instance with our case: if you have the digital version, you bypass step 1 to 2, and install it through your digital version package whatever it might be. And then apply the SS2 fixes after it's installed. Regardless if it's the digital download or original version, the end result in the installation assets are the same thing, except possibly with different path.

What I downloaded was a zip file containing the files required to install it.
But the process in which you install it is a bit odd, which makes me think it dont work properly with Win 7.

Quote

Home of the Underdogs presents:

System Shock 2 © 1999 Looking Glass Studios
CD-Rip by john_doe


Before you play:
Run sshock2.exe and chose a directory to install the game to.
Run OggSetup.exe to prepare the game data.
After that, there should be two new files,
snd.crf with about 140 MB and snd2.crf with about 120MB.
Then you can delete OggSetup.exe, LibSndFile.dll, OggDecoder.dll,
snd_crf.bla and snd2_crf.bla, as the game doesn't need these files.
Start the game with shock2.exe.


What was ripped?
Nothing, the videos have been recompressed using DivX5 and Mp3 audio.


Important:
Be sure to install the DivX 5 codec from www.divx.com to
be able to view the videos and an Mp3 audio codec.

Found it here http://www.epcgaming...ock-2-full-rip/
Its almost as if you do a double install.

After some searching I came across this site http://www.systemshock.org/index.php, where you can find tools to get it running under win 7.
But it dont work with the version I downloaded as you either need the original CD with the game files or a digital ISO version for the tools to work.

I found a copy on Amazon for just under £50.
I figured its worth it to get my hands on something I can get to work properly.



I also loved the original X-com game and there is a new one currently in development which is supposedly a remake of the original one.
I have considered pre-ordering as I love those games, but are reluctant to do so.

I have been reading the forums over there but have yet to find any useful information about it, as there is one thing in particular that concerns me.

The game is being developed not just for PC but for Xbox 360 and PS3 as well.
I'm worried that it will just be another poor attempt at a console port of a great game title.
I despise console ports and its literally destroyed so many great titles with the way they practically hold your hand and tell you where to go and what to do through the entire game.

No exploration, to experimentation, no challenge and no sense of accomplishment of any kind.

I really wish there was someone who would be willing to create games like we had in the 90's with todays technology.

Edited by Dragonlord, 22 August 2012 - 11:59 AM.

[Particle Man]

BMRX, on 21 August 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

This is a terrible answer, there is nothing wrong with consoles you my good sir probably have no clue as to why you dislike consoles.

here's a quick and easy answer as to what i mean since i'm too lazy at the moment to explain what i mean myself
http://www.urbandict...Consolification

[Adridos]

Raledon, on 21 August 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Games taking a nosedive is true, and it irks me to no end that people call Mass Effect and GTA (medicore+ games at most to my mind) game of the year and such. Without getting into it, I do feel that the standards were lowered, and watching giant reviewers such as Gamespot and IGN giving away high numbers to **** (Endless Space(8), Star control 3(9)) compared to very good games (SoTS 1(8)) only discredit the site to me, and shows the taste of the general populace.

Well, it's not a general lessening of standards (putting Gamespot and IGN aside, both are the same company, both take bribes), only the community got so big stupid things like trends and political correctness creeped in. People don't play what they like themselves, they play what everyone plays.

Perfect trend examples in recent games are Mass Effect 3, Skyrim and BF3 vs CoD nonsense.

All three of these games (the first 3 on the list) had their own community who played the games because they liked it a lot. Mass Effect 3 got a lot of hype and ended up being build for people who watched the commercial and heard from other people who did so as well and ended up playing the game because "It is popular," not because they enjoyed the storytelling or something about the game. Skyrim ended up largely the same, teh hype was built and people jumped on the game like bees on honey. Lastly BF players were a normal bunch, they played their game and liked it. But EA wanted the CoD players and so they made a massie campaign... aimed to make BF3 a cooler, better looking and more attractive CoD, dragging a lot of customers for themselves. The game was built on CoD standard and the BF 4 is going to be as well, disregarding the people that supported the franchise for so long and expected progress, not copying.

The other thing is political correctness. BF3 vs CoD is once again a perfect example and the other is Starcraft, for example.

BF3 vs CoD is easy one. Until BF3, FPS gamers viewed BF as a tactical shooter with a good and pretty unique gameplay. After BF3, it's a CoD with shinier graphics and vehicles... and also that either one is better than the other. Starcraft is also a good example, because the game was very widely polished and really good for an RTS gamer. With SC2 and RTS newcommers, they were taught that SC was and is the best strategy game ever made, the game has no flaws, is very innovative and is the only good strategy game out there. This crowed then goes and wants to make every strategy game in existence like Starcraft. What isn't Starcraft sucks, no matter how more innovative or polished it may be.

[Yelir]

Im sorry but hold the phone...

PLANETARY ANNIHILATION?! Thats the most awesome news I've heard since MWO!