<!--quoteo(post=1776642:date=Jul 1 2010, 09:45 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 1 2010, 09:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1776642"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thankfully if I have lots of money I can lock myself in my gaming dome with hundreds of games and never leave again while outside the world devolves into a nuclear wasteland of roguelikes and space shooters.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is wrong with roguelikes OR space shooters?!?!?!?!?!
<!--quoteo(post=1776737:date=Jul 2 2010, 04:40 PM:name=Slycaster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Slycaster @ Jul 2 2010, 04:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1776737"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry renegade, but to create a legacy you need money<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're talking absolute rubbish and not just in a gaming sense. The best legacies in <b>every</b> domain have been notoriously the result of "X guys in their Y garage" or "X students at Y university" or "some startup". Many of the greats in history have been known to be poor in birth, life, and/or death (Johannes Kepler, Schubert, to name a few), and the rise from poverty into fame as the result of sheer invention (as was the case with Carnegie) is the very epitome of the so-called "American dream". In fact the gaming evolution was started with a few "hackers", poor students piecing together what they could to create side-scrollers or MUDs on computers they did not even own but could only borrow from time to time. I feel it's doing little though to continue this line of discussion given your ineptitude about the muse of great inventions; known to just about anyone who has ever created anything with little or no source of funding (in fact you need not even look further than NS1).
When I do game development for fun I do it because I like doing it, not because I want everyone else to praise me for it. I don't even release most of what I do because there's no reason to. If I do release something it's usually because I want something out of it, it's usually a trade for something in return. Praise has no real meaning to me, although getting something I can use in return certainly does.
So I'll happily work for amusement or profit, but not praise, it's about the least motivating cause I can think of.
Games, at least competitive ones like NS, should always cater to the "hardocre" gamers before casuals, and balance the game based on the results/opinions of the more experienced players.
<!--quoteo(post=1777149:date=Jul 6 2010, 12:44 PM:name=Cheezy104)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cheezy104 @ Jul 6 2010, 12:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777149"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Games, at least competitive ones like NS, should always cater to the "hardocre" gamers before casuals, and balance the game based on the results/opinions of the more experienced players.
There is no other answer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1777150:date=Jul 6 2010, 08:53 PM:name=Slycaster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Slycaster @ Jul 6 2010, 08:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777150"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry man, but this is completely untrue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about we completely check this, and add some arguments as well.
<!--quoteo(post=1776903:date=Jul 3 2010, 09:58 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Jul 3 2010, 09:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1776903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're talking absolute rubbish and not just in a gaming sense. The best legacies in <b>every</b> domain have been notoriously the result of "X guys in their Y garage" or "X students at Y university" or "some startup". Many of the greats in history have been known to be poor in birth, life, and/or death (Johannes Kepler, Schubert, to name a few), and the rise from poverty into fame as the result of sheer invention (as was the case with Carnegie) is the very epitome of the so-called "American dream". In fact the gaming evolution was started with a few "hackers", poor students piecing together what they could to create side-scrollers or MUDs on computers they did not even own but could only borrow from time to time. I feel it's doing little though to continue this line of discussion given your ineptitude about the muse of great inventions; known to just about anyone who has ever created anything with little or no source of funding (in fact you need not even look further than NS1).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Entirely true. Most of the biggest legacy games were created by a few friends/colleagues out of pure passion. The problem with games nowadays is all these huge companies with near endless funding are putting titles out only for the profit. They invest tons of money into the graphics and advertisement and then hope the game sells for long enough to put out the next title in the 'series'. At the same time it is not entirely their fault for this business model. Most of the legacy games we know have come from a time when the gaming market wasn't nearly as competitive as it is now, allowing the best games to stand out much more from the rest as well as retain their player base for much longer. Now with the flood of new games constantly hitting the market all the major companies feel they have to do the same to keep up. How UWE fits into all of this I'm not sure, and I really hope a broader audience priority doesn't take away from the pure passion that created NS1.
<!--quoteo(post=1777153:date=Jul 6 2010, 01:10 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Jul 6 2010, 01:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777153"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's because casual gamers can't be arsed to write so long a text to flatter their sense of purpose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1776903:date=Jul 3 2010, 08:58 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Jul 3 2010, 08:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1776903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're talking absolute rubbish and not just in a gaming sense. The best legacies in <b>every</b> domain have been notoriously the result of "X guys in their Y garage" or "X students at Y university" or "some startup". Many of the greats in history have been known to be poor in birth, life, and/or death (Johannes Kepler, Schubert, to name a few), and the rise from poverty into fame as the result of sheer invention (as was the case with Carnegie) is the very epitome of the so-called "American dream". In fact the gaming evolution was started with a few "hackers", poor students piecing together what they could to create side-scrollers or MUDs on computers they did not even own but could only borrow from time to time. I feel it's doing little though to continue this line of discussion given your ineptitude about the muse of great inventions; known to just about anyone who has ever created anything with little or no source of funding (in fact you need not even look further than NS1).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't get it. You can't maintain a legacy without profit. Charlie cannot make NS2 in the way he made NS1. How do you not understand this. Creating a legacy is one thing, maintaining it is entirely different. Also, many of your examples are legacies that have profit margins that because of their fame, caused them to...suprise, take in a large amount of profit to continue their work.
You realize NS2 is over a million dollar project at this point. Over a MILLION dollars. I'm sorry you cannot understand that this line of work requires LARGE amounts of money.
It's unbelievably naive and selfish to believe creation of a medium such as video games should be in pure heart of just love for their fans. You don't get it, this is a business. You cannot keep your dream alive without financial support. UWE needs to do what they need to do to continue to build their legacy. And they can only do that, like i mentioned in my other post, without fear and worry financially, and ultimately, to have more tools at their disposal so their creative vision can be realized in the BEST possible way.
<!--quoteo(post=1777150:date=Jul 6 2010, 12:53 PM:name=Slycaster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Slycaster @ Jul 6 2010, 12:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777150"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry man, but this is completely untrue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is very true because he qualified it with the all-important "competitive games" (and try not to precede everything you say with "I'm sorry" because any argument following that is automatically cast in a bad light)
Competitive games <b>by definition</b> need to be balanced by the hardcore competitive community. If you don't, and you try to play a casual-balanced game competitively you will pay through the teeth by having hardcore players warp the game into something 'sploity or woefully unbalanced at high tier, or even worse, a laughable competitive "scene" with barely any more skill or strats you'd find on a pub (TF2 case-in-point).
Cheezy is correct in his statement, but the appropriate response is to note that NS2 will not be a "competitive game" like we knew it in NS. There are no bones about it, it has been made clear that NS2 will sacrifice some of its high ceiling and sharp curves - the necessary ingredients for deep competitive play - so that it will be more accessible to the casual comer. UWE aim to strike a balance between competitive play and pub play, unlike NS which became almost entirely balanced for competitive play.
I shed a tear, a drop in a salty ocean of tears from many other NS competitive players, current and past. I suppose we had our fun, and though I absolutely loathe the casual gamer and what they do to this industry, I do, with utmost lament, see the merit in UWE's stance.
edit: and in response to your mal-informed post obviously a result of merely skimming the topic: <!--quoteo(post=1777159:date=Jul 6 2010, 02:10 PM:name=Slycaster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Slycaster @ Jul 6 2010, 02:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><mal-informed content here><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> you should have taken better care to read my position, and learn that it is not one of charity, but rather of <u>priority</u>. Priority of values. Where others argue financial gain is priority, I argue and set forth concrete examples of the contrary, that best invention is not financially motivated and for that reason I first wish UWE success in developing a quality game, leaving whatever financial gains to come with it.
<!--quoteo(post=1777160:date=Jul 6 2010, 02:15 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Jul 6 2010, 02:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777160"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you should have taken better care to read my position, and learn that it is not one of charity, but rather of <u>priority</u>. Priority of values. Where others argue financial gain is priority, I argue and set forth concrete examples of the contrary, that best invention is not financially motivated and for that reason I first wish UWE success in developing a quality game, leaving whatever financial gains to come with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You really do not understand business, renegade. UWE is a business. UNKNOWN WORLDS ENTERTAINMENT.
Being a business does not mean "Alright, what can I milk to make the most money" like you seem to black and white generalize entirely. It's making you look so uninformed it's unbelievable that you can even try to justify your opinions.
UWE is making NS2 because they love they game and intend on making it the best they can. But they also are a business, and need to make decisions that will keep them afloat. You are a business first, because without UWE, NS2 doesn't exist. It's just a thought in the minds of many people with no financial ability to put it into a package called Natural Selection 2. Your argument about priorities is a joke. You build your business to be able to be better. See: Blizzard. NS2 needs to function from a business standpoint first (and to no surprise, what do you think it's doing. They have hired outsourced work, they have a producer, etc) with the intent to GROW that piece so...I don't know how this is hard for you to understand...their PRODUCTS can grow.
No one is suggesting NS2 attempt to financially drain people. People are suggesting UWE does what it needs to do to bolster its business so we can see future projects of high quality.
Let me high-light a few pieces of gaming not even in this MODERN era where costs are 10 times higher. System Shock series. Easily regarded as one of the best gaming lines in the last decade-ish. It didn't sell well. It was a cult hit. Guess what. You never saw system shock 3. Do you know why that is? I don't even need to spell it out, I just did in the last 5 posts I've made in this topic.
You want better and more products from good developers who have your interest in mind as you perceive it. Guess what, they have a business interest in mind so they can DO THOSE THINGS. And when it doesn't align because they didn't make the necessary business decisions...well then it never comes, and you can come to a message board on the internet and whine about how "things aren't the way they used to be" when you just sound like a blabbering fool.
The world is not rainbows and candy canes buddy. When you're an adult there are priorities and structural hierarchies to go through.
Sly, it's best to not dignify him, he has no intention of contributing anything. Just look to the language he uses, peppered with absolutes, he often uses diminutive or melodramatic terms. He's a fairly clever miscreant who contributes nothing but antagonism. Also, note how he almost always uses passive voice, its a tool common among early or lazy students in order to expand word counts and look academic.
"it has been made clear" "have been known to be poor" "anyone who has ever created anything" "You're talking absolute rubbish" "need to be" "you will pay" "I shed a tear, a drop in a salty ocean of tears" "the appropriate response" "you should have taken better care"
He is constructing a reality where his view, an angry and pedantic one, is the only acceptable one and is vainly trying to absorb others, which he views as inferior, into it. He's wrecked several threads now, some of which were locked or heavily edited because of the flame wars he starts.
Anyway, don't get sucked in like I did a few times.
<!--quoteo(post=1777164:date=Jul 6 2010, 02:50 PM:name=Slycaster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Slycaster @ Jul 6 2010, 02:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777164"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's making you look so uninformed it's unbelievable that you can even try to justify your opinions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, that would be your comment about money as a necessity for legacy. I was so appalled by your ineptitude then I knew in an instance you knew nothing of what drives invention or creation, only - like so many suits ruining the industry today - the business that it generates. Your bank is a business because of business, NS is a business because of inspiration. Perhaps I know nothing of the former, but I would be more ashamed to be devoid of the latter.
<!--quoteo(post=1776903:date=Jul 3 2010, 08:58 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Jul 3 2010, 08:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1776903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel it's doing little though to continue this line of discussion given your ineptitude about the muse of great inventions; known to just about anyone who has ever created anything with little or no source of funding (in fact you need not even look further than NS1).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not often I disregard my own advice; it won't happen again.
I'm going to have to agree with renegade on this one it is by no means money which has made legacy games. I feel the real disagreement here has to do with how the industry works now. There are now these big name companies that strictly follow the business model and only care about sales not a continued audience for that specific game. Then again this is pretty much the same with almost any industry these days and their products. When things get this competitive it is much harder for legacy games (let alone other legacies) to pop out of the mess.
So the concern is if UWE wants to work the same way? I'm going to say no, but it is understandable to fear this happening since 'everybody's doing it'.
UWE has made it clear they want to follow the business model more closely with this title and I share all the concern of those who realize what this can mean to the final product. It is also obvious UWE really does care about their fans so I much rather wait for a playable version of the game before drawing the conclusion they are trying to be sellouts (which seems to be the conclusion many have made without even a playable version yet).
The target audience is the unhygienic anime crowd of 2003. Which now is slightly grown, slightly less smelly, and more or less, still addicted to their computers.
<!--quoteo(post=1777179:date=Jul 6 2010, 05:07 PM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Jul 6 2010, 05:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777179"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel the real disagreement here has to do with how the industry works now. There are now these big name companies that strictly follow the business model and only care about sales not a continued audience for that specific game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lazer, this makes no sense. If they have no audience, they sell no product. No product means no profit. It's impossible for a company to be discompassionate about their audience and ALSO want to make money. It's just an absurd assumption.
Do companies today often make bad choices in order to make more money? Yes. It's a flaw of the corporate capitalist model. Is UWE reducing the quality of their product in order to appeal to a casual audience? Improbable.
The problem is that the elitists in this thread don't like that any amount of time is being spent on helping casual players integrate into the game. They delusionally imagine it sacrifices the quality of the game and will ruin the fun of veterans and competitive play, which is farthest from the truth. You mistakenly obfuscate your anti-noob agenda within a financial debate, and provide no evidence to support your claims that UWE is making the suggested sacrifice.
<!--quoteo(post=1777234:date=Jul 6 2010, 07:48 PM:name=Drown)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drown @ Jul 6 2010, 07:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777234"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that the elitists in this thread don't like that any amount of time is being spent on helping casual players integrate into the game. They delusionally imagine it sacrifices the quality of the game and will ruin the fun of veterans and competitive play, which is farthest from the truth. You mistakenly obfuscate your anti-noob agenda within a financial debate, and provide no evidence to support your claims that UWE is making the suggested sacrifice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The real thing is the belief that hardcore and noob friendly are mutually exclusive. Frankly, I don't think this is true.
With proper partitioning and good tutorial systems/transparent mechanics, noobs can pick up games and become competent rather quickly. This is actually something I think NS1 failed at. Every time we introduced it to new players about half gave up because they didn't grasp the basics of the game after 2 rounds. Another half dropped out after 4 rounds, leaving 1/4 of the players to even come to the next LAN party when NS1 was being played.
I cite League of Legends as an excellent example of well designed game mechanics and excellent methods of slowly introducing complexity and matchmaking to help noobs enter. At the same time, the higher tiers of play are in some ways even more complex and hardcore than original DotA since you have more options to play with (summoner spells and masteries and runes, all picked pre-game).
So yes, in some games that are much more casual they sacrifice the depth and it becomes a simple white-washed only-fun-for-10-hour-or-party game. However, Drown is right. I haven't seen definitive evidence of them watering the game down. If anything, they are streamlining and adding in better transparency to help new players get into the game even quicker and not rage quit out of frustration.
<!--quoteo(post=1777234:date=Jul 6 2010, 10:48 PM:name=Drown)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drown @ Jul 6 2010, 10:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777234"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do companies today often make bad choices in order to make more money? Yes. It's a flaw of the corporate capitalist model. Is UWE reducing the quality of their product in order to appeal to a casual audience? Improbable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is this not what I almost exactly said? You just don't like that I agreed with renegade on that money isn't the driving force behind legacy games. It is however the driving force in the business model (which we are BOTH agreeing with), and I'm going to repeat what you quoted, these corporations don't give a damn about a continued audience for a specific game anymore. They want to keep an audience, but only an audience for their games (not game) and want people to move on to their next release(s). I mean look at EA. They release a new racing game every year just (arguably) slightly improved in order to get all the NFS fans to buy the next one. I doubt this is the case with UWE (which I also said) but I share the concern of people fearing this one day happening.
Either way, most legacy games have come from a time when money wasn't nearly as much of a factor as it has become in today's market. So although it isn't money which creates legacy games, in today's mainstream market, generally it takes a lot of money invested to even have a competing chance.
You should always try to make games as casual as possible, as long as you don't compromise too much of the gameplay.
Basically 'casual' as I usually hear it used means something that is very easy to pick up and play, but people for some reason automatically associate that with bad games.
While it is possible to refine the game so much that you get something very easy to play but entirely devoid of entertainment value, that is generally what you get if you don't have a design goal in mind. If you know what you want the game to do before you make it, and make sure it does that every step of the way, you won't sacrifice gameplay for ease of use. You should always try for ease of use however because making games deliberately clunky or deliberately ignoring opportunities to streamline them will result in a rather bad game, or at least a rather outdated game. Excellent games that bring new things to the genre like company of heroes, are arguably just attempts to streamline exisiting games in the genre. If a strategy game is about how you intelligently place your units, then a good strategy game should allow you to focus on that. Company of heroes removes much of the micromanagement and instead gives you half a dozen units to place where you need them, the placement is the important part, not your ability to patch the holes in your unit AI. Same basically goes for total war, by removing the need for micromanagement of individuals in a large army, you open up more strategy.
Same also goes for games like half life 2, and portal, which integrate story seamlessly into the gameplay rather than stopping the game to deliver exposition. Anything that takes an existing clunky mechanic and removes the need for it or makes it less clunky, creates something new and better in the process.
<!--quoteo(post=1777277:date=Jul 7 2010, 09:33 AM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Jul 7 2010, 09:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777277"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Either way, most legacy games have come from a time when money wasn't nearly as much of a factor as it has become in today's market.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes yes, we hear you. The grass was greener when you were younger, politicians were noble, lawyers were fair and the economy was in a better shape. Frankly this is bull$#!T. Money isn't any more or less a factor today than it has been since the very first games were written on borrowed computers. Your nostalgia for a false perception of the past is interfering with a discussion that, once again is, by your own words, mostly likely irrelevant to the discussion entirely!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I doubt this is the case with UWE (which I also said) but I share the concern of people fearing this one day happening.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't hang around near playgrounds and speculate on the potential for dead children with the parents. You don't go to a restaurant and talk to the other customers about the unlikely potential that someday the cooks might poison the food.
<!--quoteo(post=1777307:date=Jul 7 2010, 05:39 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 7 2010, 05:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777307"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You should always try to make games as casual as possible, as long as you don't compromise too much of the gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't phrase it 'always'. Certainly it's the safest way, but I hope at some point smaller developers start to push the limits a bit and do a bit more ambitious projects. This is partitially why I hope that UWE would be able to preserve at least some of the less casual edge. Of course it's their own business what they actually decide to create.
Of course there's no need to make games inaccessible on purpose, but then again the accessibility usually ends up in compromises too. For example there was a lot more subtlety in older games in general. Nowadays everything is a lot more highlighted and the details are all packed on the surface of the gameplay. Also, games go quite far to adapt to the player nowadays, in older games the games in general expect the player to adapt more.
Nothing wrong with casual games of course, but I think the proportions and balance between the casual and more challenging content is badly off balance on the present market.
<!--quoteo(post=1777277:date=Jul 7 2010, 08:33 AM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Jul 7 2010, 08:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777277"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is this not what I almost exactly said?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nevermind drown. He's more intent on attacking the character than the argument; as you pointed out he is saying <b>exactly</b> the same things both you and I have already pointed out (including using terms from my original post), while trying to re-brand it simply to avoid cognitive dissonance.
To cite his own analogies: yes, you discuss the safety of children there's been a rash of abuse or kidnappings (it is in fact called an Amber Alert), and yes, you conduct health-and-safety review if there's been a rash of poisonings (it is in fact the prime job of the health inspector to inspect not only the suspect restaurants but also every restaurant regardless of trust or history). And in an industry rife with Kotick kidnappers and Call of Poison, you had better believe we are concerned and going to express it until we see the child unharmed and the food served.
You mean those Call of Duty games with 93-94 Metacritic scores and a combined 35 million copies in sales? Oh wait, you can't be talking about those. Poison implies something not a very enjoyable experience, and with Modern Warfare's enjoyable single player campaign and highly coveted fun arcade multiplayer, there's just no way you can be speaking about them. Or wait, maybe you are Renegade? Because your opinion about a video game supersedes a collective agreement that these games are polished, high quality, fun, good games.
<!--quoteo(post=1777247:date=Jul 7 2010, 08:13 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Jul 7 2010, 08:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I cite League of Legends as an excellent example of well designed game mechanics and excellent methods of slowly introducing complexity and matchmaking to help noobs enter. At the same time, the higher tiers of play are in some ways even more complex and hardcore than original DotA since you have more options to play with (summoner spells and masteries and runes, all picked pre-game).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And how does this game competitive lets say with Hon, same genre more competitive. I seriously havent played LoL but I'm quite sure there hasnt been any major tournaments like in hon (20k€ and 190k sek). I dare say hon is more popular too. HoN has decent esports allowing it to expand and pull away players from variously games altough mostly from dota.
<!--quoteo(post=1777247:date=Jul 7 2010, 06:13 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Jul 7 2010, 06:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The real thing is the belief that hardcore and noob friendly are mutually exclusive. Frankly, I don't think this is true.
With proper partitioning and good tutorial systems/transparent mechanics, noobs can pick up games and become competent rather quickly. This is actually something I think NS1 failed at. Every time we introduced it to new players about half gave up because they didn't grasp the basics of the game after 2 rounds. Another half dropped out after 4 rounds, leaving 1/4 of the players to even come to the next LAN party when NS1 was being played.
I cite League of Legends as an excellent example of well designed game mechanics and excellent methods of slowly introducing complexity and matchmaking to help noobs enter. At the same time, the higher tiers of play are in some ways even more complex and hardcore than original DotA since you have more options to play with (summoner spells and masteries and runes, all picked pre-game).
So yes, in some games that are much more casual they sacrifice the depth and it becomes a simple white-washed only-fun-for-10-hour-or-party game. However, Drown is right. I haven't seen definitive evidence of them watering the game down. If anything, they are streamlining and adding in better transparency to help new players get into the game even quicker and not rage quit out of frustration.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like TrC said, LoL has no viable competitive community. The DoTA community (and trust me, they are the most "elitist" and trashtalking community ever) may have split, but I guarantee you that most players prefer HoN over LoL. Most DoTA/HoN players refuse to even try out LoL (I admit I'm one of them. My noob friend has vastly enjoyed LoL but terrible at HoN. He also told me it stacks teams so you win/lose 50% of the time which in reality isn't good for higher level play. Another reason is the dreaded cash shop since LoL is free, but cash shops are terrible for games you pay for) because they've taken out core elements of the game that contributed to skill such as denying. LoL is basically a dumbed down game of DoTA, much like TF2 was done. RTS games tend to have the hard divide between the competitive/hardcore community and pub community, but competitive stills thrives in RTS. However, what made more money? TF2 was a huge success, yet has much less skill involved than TFC or QWTF ever had. The question is really can NS2 afford to be a hardcore game like starcraft yet allow options for less skilled to still enjoy the game (custom games). You'll see a similar divide in TF2, where pubs have random damage , random spread, and random crits while competitive players play fixed spread fixed damage no random crits. The problem is how successful can the competitive community be if the divide is far too great, and that's what the real issue IMO.
Also, I'd like to make sure people watch the whole TF2 scene just because of the time Valve has invested in it. It's one of the greatest (and probably costly) research experiments I've ever seen for marketing. Hats, many updates that give new unlocks and maps, new game modes, a LOT of stuff. Observing the community reactions is also important. You can study resentments, feelings of negligence, competitive and pub stereotyping, much more. I think it's also very applicable to the NS community because many of the NS players chose to move into TF2 as their follow through game and are most definitely waiting for NS2 to arrive.
Comments
What is wrong with roguelikes OR space shooters?!?!?!?!?!
Someone should make a NS roguelike. I'd play it.
"<b>Move to your waypoint, soldier.</b>"
"Yessi-- OH GOD"
You're talking absolute rubbish and not just in a gaming sense. The best legacies in <b>every</b> domain have been notoriously the result of "X guys in their Y garage" or "X students at Y university" or "some startup". Many of the greats in history have been known to be poor in birth, life, and/or death (Johannes Kepler, Schubert, to name a few), and the rise from poverty into fame as the result of sheer invention (as was the case with Carnegie) is the very epitome of the so-called "American dream". In fact the gaming evolution was started with a few "hackers", poor students piecing together what they could to create side-scrollers or MUDs on computers they did not even own but could only borrow from time to time. I feel it's doing little though to continue this line of discussion given your ineptitude about the muse of great inventions; known to just about anyone who has ever created anything with little or no source of funding (in fact you need not even look further than NS1).
So I'll happily work for amusement or profit, but not praise, it's about the least motivating cause I can think of.
There is no other answer.
There is no other answer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry man, but this is completely untrue.
How about we completely check this, and add some arguments as well.
<a href="http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?t=100136" target="_blank">http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?t=100136</a>
Balacing should be always up to the top competitive teams.
Entirely true. Most of the biggest legacy games were created by a few friends/colleagues out of pure passion. The problem with games nowadays is all these huge companies with near endless funding are putting titles out only for the profit. They invest tons of money into the graphics and advertisement and then hope the game sells for long enough to put out the next title in the 'series'. At the same time it is not entirely their fault for this business model. Most of the legacy games we know have come from a time when the gaming market wasn't nearly as competitive as it is now, allowing the best games to stand out much more from the rest as well as retain their player base for much longer. Now with the flood of new games constantly hitting the market all the major companies feel they have to do the same to keep up. How UWE fits into all of this I'm not sure, and I really hope a broader audience priority doesn't take away from the pure passion that created NS1.
You don't get it. You can't maintain a legacy without profit. Charlie cannot make NS2 in the way he made NS1. How do you not understand this. Creating a legacy is one thing, maintaining it is entirely different. Also, many of your examples are legacies that have profit margins that because of their fame, caused them to...suprise, take in a large amount of profit to continue their work.
You realize NS2 is over a million dollar project at this point. Over a MILLION dollars.
I'm sorry you cannot understand that this line of work requires LARGE amounts of money.
It's unbelievably naive and selfish to believe creation of a medium such as video games should be in pure heart of just love for their fans. You don't get it, this is a business. You cannot keep your dream alive without financial support. UWE needs to do what they need to do to continue to build their legacy. And they can only do that, like i mentioned in my other post, without fear and worry financially, and ultimately, to have more tools at their disposal so their creative vision can be realized in the BEST possible way.
That is very true because he qualified it with the all-important "competitive games" (and try not to precede everything you say with "I'm sorry" because any argument following that is automatically cast in a bad light)
Competitive games <b>by definition</b> need to be balanced by the hardcore competitive community. If you don't, and you try to play a casual-balanced game competitively you will pay through the teeth by having hardcore players warp the game into something 'sploity or woefully unbalanced at high tier, or even worse, a laughable competitive "scene" with barely any more skill or strats you'd find on a pub (TF2 case-in-point).
Cheezy is correct in his statement, but the appropriate response is to note that NS2 will not be a "competitive game" like we knew it in NS. There are no bones about it, it has been made clear that NS2 will sacrifice some of its high ceiling and sharp curves - the necessary ingredients for deep competitive play - so that it will be more accessible to the casual comer. UWE aim to strike a balance between competitive play and pub play, unlike NS which became almost entirely balanced for competitive play.
I shed a tear, a drop in a salty ocean of tears from many other NS competitive players, current and past. I suppose we had our fun, and though I absolutely loathe the casual gamer and what they do to this industry, I do, with utmost lament, see the merit in UWE's stance.
edit: and in response to your mal-informed post obviously a result of merely skimming the topic:
<!--quoteo(post=1777159:date=Jul 6 2010, 02:10 PM:name=Slycaster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Slycaster @ Jul 6 2010, 02:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1777159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><mal-informed content here><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you should have taken better care to read my position, and learn that it is not one of charity, but rather of <u>priority</u>. Priority of values. Where others argue financial gain is priority, I argue and set forth concrete examples of the contrary, that best invention is not financially motivated and for that reason I first wish UWE success in developing a quality game, leaving whatever financial gains to come with it.
You really do not understand business, renegade. UWE is a business. UNKNOWN WORLDS ENTERTAINMENT.
Being a business does not mean "Alright, what can I milk to make the most money" like you seem to black and white generalize entirely. It's making you look so uninformed it's unbelievable that you can even try to justify your opinions.
UWE is making NS2 because they love they game and intend on making it the best they can. But they also are a business, and need to make decisions that will keep them afloat. You are a business first, because without UWE, NS2 doesn't exist. It's just a thought in the minds of many people with no financial ability to put it into a package called Natural Selection 2. Your argument about priorities is a joke. You build your business to be able to be better. See: Blizzard. NS2 needs to function from a business standpoint first (and to no surprise, what do you think it's doing. They have hired outsourced work, they have a producer, etc) with the intent to GROW that piece so...I don't know how this is hard for you to understand...their PRODUCTS can grow.
No one is suggesting NS2 attempt to financially drain people. People are suggesting UWE does what it needs to do to bolster its business so we can see future projects of high quality.
Let me high-light a few pieces of gaming not even in this MODERN era where costs are 10 times higher. System Shock series. Easily regarded as one of the best gaming lines in the last decade-ish. It didn't sell well. It was a cult hit. Guess what. You never saw system shock 3. Do you know why that is? I don't even need to spell it out, I just did in the last 5 posts I've made in this topic.
You want better and more products from good developers who have your interest in mind as you perceive it. Guess what, they have a business interest in mind so they can DO THOSE THINGS. And when it doesn't align because they didn't make the necessary business decisions...well then it never comes, and you can come to a message board on the internet and whine about how "things aren't the way they used to be" when you just sound like a blabbering fool.
The world is not rainbows and candy canes buddy. When you're an adult there are priorities and structural hierarchies to go through.
Sly, it's best to not dignify him, he has no intention of contributing anything. Just look to the language he uses, peppered with absolutes, he often uses diminutive or melodramatic terms. He's a fairly clever miscreant who contributes nothing but antagonism. Also, note how he almost always uses passive voice, its a tool common among early or lazy students in order to expand word counts and look academic.
"it has been made clear"
"have been known to be poor"
"anyone who has ever created anything"
"You're talking absolute rubbish"
"need to be"
"you will pay"
"I shed a tear, a drop in a salty ocean of tears"
"the appropriate response"
"you should have taken better care"
He is constructing a reality where his view, an angry and pedantic one, is the only acceptable one and is vainly trying to absorb others, which he views as inferior, into it. He's wrecked several threads now, some of which were locked or heavily edited because of the flame wars he starts.
Anyway, don't get sucked in like I did a few times.
Edit: verb disagreement
No, that would be your comment about money as a necessity for legacy. I was so appalled by your ineptitude then I knew in an instance you knew nothing of what drives invention or creation, only - like so many suits ruining the industry today - the business that it generates. Your bank is a business because of business, NS is a business because of inspiration. Perhaps I know nothing of the former, but I would be more ashamed to be devoid of the latter.
<!--quoteo(post=1776903:date=Jul 3 2010, 08:58 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Jul 3 2010, 08:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1776903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel it's doing little though to continue this line of discussion given your ineptitude about the muse of great inventions; known to just about anyone who has ever created anything with little or no source of funding (in fact you need not even look further than NS1).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not often I disregard my own advice; it won't happen again.
So the concern is if UWE wants to work the same way? I'm going to say no, but it is understandable to fear this happening since 'everybody's doing it'.
UWE has made it clear they want to follow the business model more closely with this title and I share all the concern of those who realize what this can mean to the final product. It is also obvious UWE really does care about their fans so I much rather wait for a playable version of the game before drawing the conclusion they are trying to be sellouts (which seems to be the conclusion many have made without even a playable version yet).
Lazer, this makes no sense. If they have no audience, they sell no product. No product means no profit. It's impossible for a company to be discompassionate about their audience and ALSO want to make money. It's just an absurd assumption.
Do companies today often make bad choices in order to make more money? Yes. It's a flaw of the corporate capitalist model. Is UWE reducing the quality of their product in order to appeal to a casual audience? Improbable.
The problem is that the elitists in this thread don't like that any amount of time is being spent on helping casual players integrate into the game. They delusionally imagine it sacrifices the quality of the game and will ruin the fun of veterans and competitive play, which is farthest from the truth. You mistakenly obfuscate your anti-noob agenda within a financial debate, and provide no evidence to support your claims that UWE is making the suggested sacrifice.
Oh ya, I agree with Drown.
The real thing is the belief that hardcore and noob friendly are mutually exclusive. Frankly, I don't think this is true.
With proper partitioning and good tutorial systems/transparent mechanics, noobs can pick up games and become competent rather quickly. This is actually something I think NS1 failed at. Every time we introduced it to new players about half gave up because they didn't grasp the basics of the game after 2 rounds. Another half dropped out after 4 rounds, leaving 1/4 of the players to even come to the next LAN party when NS1 was being played.
I cite League of Legends as an excellent example of well designed game mechanics and excellent methods of slowly introducing complexity and matchmaking to help noobs enter. At the same time, the higher tiers of play are in some ways even more complex and hardcore than original DotA since you have more options to play with (summoner spells and masteries and runes, all picked pre-game).
So yes, in some games that are much more casual they sacrifice the depth and it becomes a simple white-washed only-fun-for-10-hour-or-party game. However, Drown is right. I haven't seen definitive evidence of them watering the game down. If anything, they are streamlining and adding in better transparency to help new players get into the game even quicker and not rage quit out of frustration.
Is this not what I almost exactly said? You just don't like that I agreed with renegade on that money isn't the driving force behind legacy games. It is however the driving force in the business model (which we are BOTH agreeing with), and I'm going to repeat what you quoted, these corporations don't give a damn about a continued audience for a specific game anymore. They want to keep an audience, but only an audience for their games (not game) and want people to move on to their next release(s). I mean look at EA. They release a new racing game every year just (arguably) slightly improved in order to get all the NFS fans to buy the next one. I doubt this is the case with UWE (which I also said) but I share the concern of people fearing this one day happening.
Either way, most legacy games have come from a time when money wasn't nearly as much of a factor as it has become in today's market. So although it isn't money which creates legacy games, in today's mainstream market, generally it takes a lot of money invested to even have a competing chance.
Basically 'casual' as I usually hear it used means something that is very easy to pick up and play, but people for some reason automatically associate that with bad games.
While it is possible to refine the game so much that you get something very easy to play but entirely devoid of entertainment value, that is generally what you get if you don't have a design goal in mind. If you know what you want the game to do before you make it, and make sure it does that every step of the way, you won't sacrifice gameplay for ease of use. You should always try for ease of use however because making games deliberately clunky or deliberately ignoring opportunities to streamline them will result in a rather bad game, or at least a rather outdated game. Excellent games that bring new things to the genre like company of heroes, are arguably just attempts to streamline exisiting games in the genre. If a strategy game is about how you intelligently place your units, then a good strategy game should allow you to focus on that. Company of heroes removes much of the micromanagement and instead gives you half a dozen units to place where you need them, the placement is the important part, not your ability to patch the holes in your unit AI. Same basically goes for total war, by removing the need for micromanagement of individuals in a large army, you open up more strategy.
Same also goes for games like half life 2, and portal, which integrate story seamlessly into the gameplay rather than stopping the game to deliver exposition. Anything that takes an existing clunky mechanic and removes the need for it or makes it less clunky, creates something new and better in the process.
Yes yes, we hear you. The grass was greener when you were younger, politicians were noble, lawyers were fair and the economy was in a better shape. Frankly this is bull$#!T. Money isn't any more or less a factor today than it has been since the very first games were written on borrowed computers. Your nostalgia for a false perception of the past is interfering with a discussion that, once again is, by your own words, mostly likely irrelevant to the discussion entirely!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I doubt this is the case with UWE (which I also said) but I share the concern of people fearing this one day happening.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't hang around near playgrounds and speculate on the potential for dead children with the parents. You don't go to a restaurant and talk to the other customers about the unlikely potential that someday the cooks might poison the food.
I wouldn't phrase it 'always'. Certainly it's the safest way, but I hope at some point smaller developers start to push the limits a bit and do a bit more ambitious projects. This is partitially why I hope that UWE would be able to preserve at least some of the less casual edge. Of course it's their own business what they actually decide to create.
Of course there's no need to make games inaccessible on purpose, but then again the accessibility usually ends up in compromises too. For example there was a lot more subtlety in older games in general. Nowadays everything is a lot more highlighted and the details are all packed on the surface of the gameplay. Also, games go quite far to adapt to the player nowadays, in older games the games in general expect the player to adapt more.
Nothing wrong with casual games of course, but I think the proportions and balance between the casual and more challenging content is badly off balance on the present market.
Nevermind drown. He's more intent on attacking the character than the argument; as you pointed out he is saying <b>exactly</b> the same things both you and I have already pointed out (including using terms from my original post), while trying to re-brand it simply to avoid cognitive dissonance.
To cite his own analogies: yes, you discuss the safety of children there's been a rash of abuse or kidnappings (it is in fact called an Amber Alert), and yes, you conduct health-and-safety review if there's been a rash of poisonings (it is in fact the prime job of the health inspector to inspect not only the suspect restaurants but also every restaurant regardless of trust or history). And in an industry rife with Kotick kidnappers and Call of Poison, you had better believe we are concerned and going to express it until we see the child unharmed and the food served.
You mean those Call of Duty games with 93-94 Metacritic scores and a combined 35 million copies in sales? Oh wait, you can't be talking about those. Poison implies something not a very enjoyable experience, and with Modern Warfare's enjoyable single player campaign and highly coveted fun arcade multiplayer, there's just no way you can be speaking about them. Or wait, maybe you are Renegade? Because your opinion about a video game supersedes a collective agreement that these games are polished, high quality, fun, good games.
And how does this game competitive lets say with Hon, same genre more competitive. I seriously havent played LoL but I'm quite sure there hasnt been any major tournaments like in hon (20k€ and 190k sek). I dare say hon is more popular too. HoN has decent esports allowing it to expand and pull away players from variously games altough mostly from dota.
With proper partitioning and good tutorial systems/transparent mechanics, noobs can pick up games and become competent rather quickly. This is actually something I think NS1 failed at. Every time we introduced it to new players about half gave up because they didn't grasp the basics of the game after 2 rounds. Another half dropped out after 4 rounds, leaving 1/4 of the players to even come to the next LAN party when NS1 was being played.
I cite League of Legends as an excellent example of well designed game mechanics and excellent methods of slowly introducing complexity and matchmaking to help noobs enter. At the same time, the higher tiers of play are in some ways even more complex and hardcore than original DotA since you have more options to play with (summoner spells and masteries and runes, all picked pre-game).
So yes, in some games that are much more casual they sacrifice the depth and it becomes a simple white-washed only-fun-for-10-hour-or-party game. However, Drown is right. I haven't seen definitive evidence of them watering the game down. If anything, they are streamlining and adding in better transparency to help new players get into the game even quicker and not rage quit out of frustration.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like TrC said, LoL has no viable competitive community. The DoTA community (and trust me, they are the most "elitist" and trashtalking community ever) may have split, but I guarantee you that most players prefer HoN over LoL. Most DoTA/HoN players refuse to even try out LoL (I admit I'm one of them. My noob friend has vastly enjoyed LoL but terrible at HoN. He also told me it stacks teams so you win/lose 50% of the time which in reality isn't good for higher level play. Another reason is the dreaded cash shop since LoL is free, but cash shops are terrible for games you pay for) because they've taken out core elements of the game that contributed to skill such as denying. LoL is basically a dumbed down game of DoTA, much like TF2 was done. RTS games tend to have the hard divide between the competitive/hardcore community and pub community, but competitive stills thrives in RTS. However, what made more money? TF2 was a huge success, yet has much less skill involved than TFC or QWTF ever had. The question is really can NS2 afford to be a hardcore game like starcraft yet allow options for less skilled to still enjoy the game (custom games). You'll see a similar divide in TF2, where pubs have random damage , random spread, and random crits while competitive players play fixed spread fixed damage no random crits. The problem is how successful can the competitive community be if the divide is far too great, and that's what the real issue IMO.
Also, I'd like to make sure people watch the whole TF2 scene just because of the time Valve has invested in it. It's one of the greatest (and probably costly) research experiments I've ever seen for marketing. Hats, many updates that give new unlocks and maps, new game modes, a LOT of stuff. Observing the community reactions is also important. You can study resentments, feelings of negligence, competitive and pub stereotyping, much more. I think it's also very applicable to the NS community because many of the NS players chose to move into TF2 as their follow through game and are most definitely waiting for NS2 to arrive.