Variety, Social Aspects More Important To Game Success Than Graphics, Plot 236
proslack writes "In a study presented at the Human-Computer Interaction conference in Cambridge, England, British researchers Beale and Bond found that plot and graphics are not critical to the success of video games; price and the inclusion of social aspects (e.g. multiplayer or chat) were found to be more important."
An unfinished version of the paper (PDF) is available from the researchers' web site. They said, "One of the most unexpected findings was that gameplay was not featured as one of the most important categories to fulfill," though they acknowledge that variety and cohesion were measured separately from gameplay, which past studies have not done.
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news fun is more important to a games success than graphics, plot.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
My favorite example of this is Castle Crashers right now.
I'm lame, and I didn't discover it until about a month ago, but I'll be damned if it's not my favorite game right now. Flash style animation, simple mechanic, funny elements... That's all I really need.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure wish they'd port that to pc. I seriously doubt I'll be getting a 360 until I find one in bin for $30.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure wish they'd port that to pc. I seriously doubt I'll be getting a 360 until I find one in bin for $30.
100USD and I'm game. Had one in the first couple months, surprisingly DVD-ROM went out and not the RROD, now that I've been burned once I shant be burned again. So I guess to get back on topic, price also plays an important roll in gaming. For instance I still use my ATI x1800XT, draws more power then I like but I find it hard to invest in gaming tech when so few good games come out. It seems to me games eat up ever more sophisticated hardware without a justifiable return of enjoyment.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
at which point the social aspects of the game will be very diminished, which is an interestinng downside to this new trend of social gaming.
Or you could look at it another way - once the game is no longer being hyped by advertisers, most of those who remain will be real fans of the game (and thus usually people who don't need help or beg for sh*t etc), or people introduced to the game by those already fans (thus won't be needing help from you either), or those doing the same thing as you (who I guess would at least *tend* to be more intelligent, though of course not all bargain hunters are Einstein).. So theoretically it can be a positive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another ridiculous study proving nothing. And an unfinished one no less.
As the poster above said... FUN is more important.
This just seems like a study put out by game developers to justify doing even crappier AI than we already get.
Or of course they didn't ask any actual hardcore gamers who go back to the Atari 2600 as I'd rather spend an hour playing Maze Craze on that than most of what's released today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they simply don't know that there are different types of people who like different types of games.
Some people play for the shiny.
Some people play to collect.
Some people play to show off.
Some people play to talk.
Some people play to explore.
Some people play for the plot.
Lumping them all together will, by necessity, leave you with only the cross demographic factors like price, and some of the larger factors that cut across several groups. The show-offs, collectors and talkers all like multiplayer game
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, I've actually got some pretty far out graphics in some ways, but it's just not cool in the way they expect.
Re: (Score:2)
Great product placement dude, I'll give it a try.
Re: (Score:2)
He does seem to do all that on his forum.
But regardless, if you're really trying to make money it would be much easier to develop the game as a mod for a more popular game such as HL2 or a map pack for TF2. Gaming communities take a long time to mature**
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is Atkins a Diety? Is the local Deli your temple?
Re: (Score:2)
In case you don't know who I'm referring to, links regarding the blue Fugates and their disorder follow: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kyperry3/Blue_Fugates_Troublesome_Creek.html [ancestry.com] http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1272/is-there-really-a-race-of-blue-people [straightdope.com] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methemoglobinemia [wikipedia.org]
Doubt it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bull, as far as I am concerned:
1) Plot
2) Price
3) Graphics
.
.
.
374) Social
Re: (Score:2)
You place multiplayer capabilities at #374? Seriously?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's about right. If the core game sucks, it sucks more with a friend present and online-play can't fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
However, if the core gameplay is only "ok", playing with friends does improve it.
More accurately, it stops a decent game getting boring after playing it through once.
Re: (Score:2)
You place multiplayer capabilities at #374? Seriously?
Yeah, totally. Half-life, Zelda, Splinter Cell, and Super Mario Bros. would have been so much better as MMOs.
(/me stops typing before I start to sound like Gabe. [penny-arcade.com])
Re:Doubt it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't the Half-Life mod Counter-Strike (which requires other players) pretty freaking awesome? IMO, it kind of sucked to play against bots.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, it kind of sucked to play against bots.
Maybe in a game that doesn't natively support them, UT sure did a heck of a job with em, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
CS 1.6 is still heavily played, many years after CS:Source was released. The graphics certainly haven't kept up, but the tactical and social aspects made it worth playing for a long time. It probably is still worth playing, only I don't have the time to keep the skills up (not that they were fantastic to begin with).
Re: (Score:2)
CS 1.6 is played because a lot, a LOT, of CS players did not care for the Source engine and what it did to their game. Rubber barrels, rubber barrels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Battletoads with a second player was NOT better...
Good gods...
Re: (Score:2)
Having fun with...?!
We're talking Civil War reenactment here, except instead of being over states' sovereignty, it was over whose fault it was that you just punched each other off the cliff *again* or who sucked so bad that after 22 continues you still couldn't beat the damn jetski stage...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You place multiplayer capabilities at #374? Seriously?
Given the lame state of games on most servers, I don't place multiplayer very high either.
See The More Things Change [penny-arcade.com] for an example among many...
Let's Play "Spot the Friendless Dude" (Score:4, Funny)
1) Plot
2) Price
3) Graphics
Just give us a heads up if you intend to buy a van and a whole bunch of fertilizer.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think I am the only weirdo here. I like mostly single-player fps games (quake 2 being all-time favorite) and of those games I like ones where there are unusual bugs which can be exploited to advance in unusual ways. I am basically a beta-tester at heart and quirky bugs is what I mostly want in a game.
For certain markets... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It also assumes that gamers know what actually is necessary for a games success. Much of what causes a game to be a success is many times NON OBVIOUS.
A word like "Gameplay" is too deep and nuanced and changes from game to game, just like how do you capture the "Feel", control and sense of speed in a racing game?
Or what about the fluid battle mechanics of god of war compared to other clunkier games?
Truth is one study is not definitive and I'd trust hardcore gamers before I trust pointificating researchers o
Also (Score:5, Insightful)
Gamers often don't know what they want. Customers in general often don't know what they want. Just because someone says "This is what I want," doesn't mean you can take it at face value. They will claim to value something highly, and then put little to no value on that in actual purchasing. Basing your study on reviews is thus not a good idea.
You can witness this in terms of people who continually cry about wanting more "quality" electronics, yest consistently purchasing the cheapest crap they can get their hands on. When you talk to them, they claim that quality and reliability are things they value highly. However their consumption habits show that isn't the case, what they value is low cost an features.
Also it is likely that what people value depends on the kind of game. In some kinds of games, plot is unimportant. A good example would be an online shooter. Even if there was a fairly good plot, people would skip it to get to the game. The point is to get in with other people and play in a simple, non-persistent environment. However in RPGs, plot is often much more important. People play the game to experience the story. Likewise, in some RPGs multi-player might actually be a drawback. You don't want other people ruining your experience of the story.
So I agree it is silly to look at reviews and say "This is what is important to gamers." No, that may be what they claim is important, may not be what they actually buy on. Likewise it may be important only for certain types of games.
Social aspects are very important to my in TF2. The ability to play with others is what makes the game fun, and the ability to have lists of friends and to talk in game is very important to me enjoying it. Plot is not. I'm fine with the fact that there is no plot to speak of, I'd not bother with it if there were. I want to get in and shoot people.
Socials aspects are not important to Mass Effect. Frankly, I want to be left alone when I play that, it is like a good book where I wish to get enveloped in the story. Plot is highly important. The biggest reason I like that game is its amazing story. I find myself very drawn to it and, like a book, wanting to finish the "good parts" when I get to them.
Both games are good in different ways, both have received my money. Neither would be improved by trying to take what makes the other good.
Re: (Score:2)
You can witness this in terms of people who continually cry about wanting more "quality" electronics, yest consistently purchasing the cheapest crap they can get their hands on. When you talk to them, they claim that quality and reliability are things they value highly. However their consumption habits show that isn't the case, what they value is low cost an features.
I think part of the problem is that 'low cost and features' are easy to verify; you go into the store, or look at some photos, or read some
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
huge hits recently such as Bioshock and Mass Effect show pretty clearly that a good plot, solid setting, and good graphics are key to a blockbuster game.
And Wii Fit shows quite the opposite...
Exactly (Score:2, Interesting)
While game makers might like the idea, I don't. Give me just games which I can play whenever I want without needing Internet connection. And don't worry, in the rare cases when I want to play online I'll do it, just don't try killing the offline gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think "good graphics" is all about how many lil' triangles you can cram into Krato's left nipple. It's more about having a consistent and interesting art style. I still think Beyond Good & Evil is one of the most beautiful games ever made, even though it was made on PS2 quite a while ago.
Re: (Score:2)
BG&E was also made for PC!
Maybe true for the teeny-boppers (Score:4, Insightful)
This may be true for the teeny-boppers who've probably never played a game with a real plot and great game play. Most modern console games have pretty similar graphics and tend to have the same lack of plot or original thought - so yes, I'd believe that being able to chat with friends would be "important" to them because it allows them to be distracted from how boring the game is.
However, with older gamers, it is normally universal that plot and game play come before graphics and most of us couldn't give a rats ass if you can chat with your friends in-game. We already have a great way to chat with friends while playing if we need to - it's called a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Older, but only sightly. Too old, and you may realize we already have a way to get a good plot, and they're called "books". No, all it matters to me is gameplay and yes, the "social aspect" you deride so much. Give me a fun game, and an easy way to find others who play it, and I'm all set.
That's why my favorite RPG is Guild Wars, the plot may be an endless stream of cliches and the graphics may not be anywhere near as good as those of Mass Effect or the latest Final Fantasy, but the battle system is fun as
Re: (Score:2)
Except that in books, nothing ever changes. In a well written RPG, the outcome and the way things play out over the course of the game is affected by your choices.
If you want to do something mind-numbingly repetitive and dull while talking to other people, I suggest either work or playing sports. With work you'll at least make money and with sports you'll at least get exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that in books, nothing ever changes. In a well written RPG, the outcome and the way things play out over the course of the game is affected by your choices.
No more than in a Choose Your Own Adventure book, unless it's a roleplaying session with other humans (hence, 'social aspect').
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On an RPG that allows modding (which just about every RPG these days does)
Kingdom Hearts does not. Final Fantasy does not. Dragon Quest does not. In fact, as far as I know, most popular RPGs for consoles do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Try interactive fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely with you on the Guild Wars choice; I think it's one of the thing that manages to satisfy most of the people most of the time.. There's the story mode (which is the bit that has me awaiting the next release; graphics be damned, it's fun going through those stories!), which is like reading a book.. Then there's the jump in with everything already there for the PvP aspect.. You can group for the social aspect, or use 'heroes' and henchmen to solo (which I do a lot of the time), or a mix thereof..
Re: (Score:2)
I think perhaps you are not aware that the majority of gameplayers are, in fact, not chronic players. Playing computer games is no longer the reserve of the all-out nerd, it has long been mainstream, and that means it has to appeal to people who may play every day, but only for a relatively short time; the very same people who enjoy their soap operas and sports shows along with nattering with their friends. Ordinary people, in other words. And just like most people don't really want to read heavy and deep b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I.. good god my head asplode, please get off your high horse. Games don't need a plot. Tag is a game, chess is a game, ffs beer pong is a game, and there's no plot. Plot comes into games only when the game is trying to tell a story, which is really a fairly recent development but in no way necessary to make a good game.
But I'm sure you're dismiss this as just another unwashed opinion from someone who's not a REAL gamer, elohel.
Re: (Score:2)
And what is a 'real' gamer?
Methodology is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words: "We didn't like the result we got, so we massaged the data until we got something we liked, and called that our method."
Re:Methodology is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words: "We didn't like the result we got, so we massaged the data until we got something we liked, and called that our method."
You said just about all there is to be said. They changed their method to make the results match their hypothesis. They acknowledge poor methodology in their data collection, so even the original results are suspect. The only place this paper ought've been published is in a landfill. Beale and Bond should go back to 101-level courses, and the headline of this story should be "Don't Publish Research With Obvious Flaws".
Back in the 1980's.... (Score:4, Informative)
One of the first multiplayer games we played was 'grid' [imageshack.us] by Peter S. Langston - it came with a USENIX archive tape. The game itself was an ASCII rendering of 'grid war' in first person perspective, but it supported inter-player communication. Other mainframe multi-user-dungeon games [wikipedia.org] were also popular as they also had the multi-player capability.
how to you measure such things? (Score:2, Interesting)
Look there are good movies with car chases, a rouge cop and one liners, and there are bad movies with such things. Any kind of list of 'qualities' is useless because it's not what it has it
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a reference to "the 36 plots [rpglibrary.org]" that are common to almost every drama ever written, translated to the context of paper-based RPGs.
You are exactly right, in that is is how you use the plot device, not what the plot device is... which should be more apparent given how small the set of plot devices really is.
Conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I had to keep adding in random strangers as friends to get benefits in the Facebook games like Farmville, Knighthood, Battlestations, Mafia, etc before I decided to quit doing that. Then I found out Facebook doesn't like it when you drop a large group of your 'friends' and ban you for it. We used to be able to add in many friends, add them in the games, and then drop them and they'd still be in the games.
Thing is if people only added in their "real friends" to these Facebook games they'd only have like
Quake, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying that perhaps innovation could top plot? For something like quake, I'm not sure I could base my love for it on the social aspects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quake had no plot, at least not one that made any sense or was original in any way. It was the multiplayer which made it such an incredibly successful phenomenon. Folks these days might forget what the old days before the Intertubes were really like; being able to blow your friends up for the first time was just awesome.
Sure quake had a plot. B.J. Blaskowitz had just escaped Nazi Germany, killed all the demons in hell, lost his pet bunny, and then ended up in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Quake had :
Good enough graphics (Not the best but good enough)
Great gameplay, mainly because the engine did not get in the way (you did not have to jump up steps) there were no artificial restrictions due to engine limitations
Extensibility, there were new levels available, and complete mods, this made it last beyond the initial first completion ...
Multiplayer, simply added more interest, you could learn the bots, but cannot learn all the possible opponents ....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps my memory is failing me, but what had better graphics than Quake when it was released?
In practice, theory and practice are different... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except this isn't always the case.
As seen in another recent posting, you tend to get pushed to the 'indie' section of gaming if you don't have the visuals that people want. People like looking at pretty screen-candy, and game makers know to indulge people in this. You can certainly have good games without amazing visuals, but they won't ever be mainstream.
Most people love their graphics, even if they'll then claim 'gameplay' is important on some survey.
Re:In practice, theory and practice are different. (Score:2)
"Most people love their graphics, even if they'll then claim 'gameplay' is important on some survey"
Graphics is a part of gameplay. They are not seperate, hence we call them VIDEO games and not "games mechanics that can't be seen", a game mechanic that is, control, animation systems and visual feedback are all tied together. You can't divorce them from one another in many games without losing something.
The video aspect of a game has always mattered. It's not that graphics DONT matter, it's that graphics
An interesting but not thorough study (Score:4, Insightful)
don't forget (Score:4, Insightful)
Video games are now mainstream, just another Hollywood, and what we can learn from movies and apply to our preferred entertainment is that unmitigated mediocrity is no obstacle to making money. How many cookie cutter romantic comedies come out each year? There's no innovation, no surprises, but they keep making them so the money's coming from somewhere. OMG, he travels through time, but he still loves her and she loves him back? Shit bitch, no way! How about generic action movies? Three Transporters, Two Cranked's and Death Race, and I'm sure they're making Death Race 2 right now... in case we forget Jason Statham is awesome. The examples go on. If these movies are making money somehow that means there's enough people out there who are buying, for who those movies offer enough. And yay, look out, the same is true for games. We're measuring different things here, and we even have a study for some reason, but it's no surprise that the average person's demands are for something that's "good enough" in a few basic areas.
Games list? MUD's. (Score:2, Interesting)
idle gossip (Score:5, Interesting)
The PBS special, titled "The Brain's Big Bang", suggested gossip accounts for 2/3 of our speech activity. The episode went on to offer the now widely touted conjecture that social networking may have been one of the prime movers behind development of our comparatively big brains. Idle conjecture can take it to a simpler, more fundamental level. Apoptosis or programmed cell death is thought to be initiated by lack of inter cellular communication. Cells programme themselves to die when they no longer receive communications requiring them to live. It's easy to extrapolate from those findings to an individual's need to socially interact.
Re: (Score:2)
Er no, really really no.
You can't infer any such thing between two such radically different systems. And since there are plenty of multi-cellular organisms which are completely solitary, it is trivial to completely disprove the idea.
Depth (Score:2)
I've spent hours and hours playing Hearts of Iron 2. Can't play HoI3 because the graphics engine is too bloated and won't run on my laptop. I like the depth they added, but in this case increasing graphical quality actually makes the game unplayable. And I'm not alone, a lot of people complained about the system reqs.
Poor terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
DOS based games (Score:5, Interesting)
I got old MS-DOS formatted floppy disks that have my old DOS games on it. I am finding new use with them via DOSBox [dosbox.com].
Modern games, mostly Windows based DirectX memory eating and bloated but full of 3D graphics and surround sound audio aren't as good to play as the old DOS games. The old DOS games had a limited memory system and most were written in assembly or C and had to fit in under 12M of RAM using XMS or EMS etc RAM that extended over the 640K of DOS. They didn't have gigabyte hard drives back then and had to fit games on 120M hard drives or lower. They only had 640x480 VGA graphics and Sound Blaster 16 Pro audio.
How many remember Syndicate, XCOM, Dune II, Master of Orion 1 and 2, Master of Magic, Bard's Tale (EGA graphics and no sound card support but the Bard's Tale Construction set fixed that with VGA and Sound Blaster support), and other classic DOS games?
I heard a rumor that the classic DOS games are coming back via online services for $5 each because modern games don't have that enjoyability that the old 1990's DOS games had, plus people are learning how to run old games via DOSBOX or emulators that run DOS operating systems. The online services allows a DOSBox type DOS emulator/environment to run the DOS video game in it.
Almost every gaming company is trying to get the best graphics and sound effects, and it seems like they followed the Doom first person shooter model too closely with variations and modifications to it and forgot to make it entertaining and mean something via those social aspects of it. Not just chatting with other players, but the social aspects of going up against a computer controlled AI opponent(s). One of the few modern games that does that is Civilization IV, but it is basically the same game since Civilization II (or the original Civilization for DOS and the SNES) with more graphics and sounds added to it with movies and animation and then some bonus features but still plays the same as the original pretty much. Send settlers to build cities, take your civilization from the stone age to modern times without an enemy civilization taking yours out and develop technology for stronger military units and improvements to cities and world wonders. But in order to bring it to video game console units they had to dumb it down to Civilization Revolutions.
People want a game that is challenging, but they can set the level of difficulty. Sometimes the turns based game is better than the first person shooter realtime game that eats up lots of RAM and hard drive space for all of the animation and sound. Think of Tetris and other innovative games that did something different from all of the rest, and didn't need the animation graphics and sound effects to win over gamers. Just have an easy to use interface that doesn't require a user manual to be read in order to play it. Some of the best video games the player just clicked the start button and then just joined in the game learning as they went along. Which is what saved games are for, if you mess up, load a saved game before you messed up so you can avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
But in order to bring it to video game console units they had to dumb it down to Civilization Revolutions.
Interesting that you should say that. I like Revolutions (DS) precisely because it reminds me of Civ II. (Still the best one in my book. Though Call to Power also has a strong claim to that title.) III and IV added a lot of features, but I find that most of those detract from the core gameplay. Revolutions DS feels like it took Civ II, added the best elements of III and IV (cultural influence and great persons), and ran with it.
Sorry for all the parentheses. Hope you like LISP. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still possible to buy brand new Atari 2600 console systems from places like Amazon. Something to think about that some games are over 40 years old now and players still want to play them.
Define success. (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps fiscally.
But not in my book.
of course that's what they would say (Score:2)
if you put a bunch of people in a room together and ask them to play a game, that's called a lan party.
If there's no multiplay aka (social aspects) then it would be pretty boring pretty quick.
Games were always plot and gameplay driven. Then the japanese started making random gameplay simulators and the graphics were a toddler feast and people who had no attention span anyway started playing them and thought they were fun because those people lacked the higher brain function to realize that performing a mun
Who cares about a neurotypical average HERE? (Score:2)
This conclusions of this study don't apply to me at all: I'm not human, at least not precisely the same variety of Homo sp. that these researchers put under the microscope. I prefer to avoid games with social components, particularly those that are multiplayer but even those solo games that include elements like diplomacy and spying. Truth be told, I prefer games that have endless replayability (*without* other human players), total immersion, and a focus on non-abstract strategy and complexity (extra bon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting - so you're posting on a social website about the fact that you don't like social games?
Seems odd, maybe it's just me but anyone who really didn't like to interact probably wouldn't be posting on slashdot.. I mean if slashdot isn't a social site what is? Isn't 99% of the content user generated, the vast bulk of it effectively a giant chat room? As in almost 100% social?
I suspect that the issue you have with games isn't the social side, although you're decided it is, I suspect there's something e
And for the hardcore gamers, (Score:2)
The most important aspect of games is good AI, and world design/mechanics.
Still a game? NO. (Score:2)
According to that study, IRC is the perfect game. Which obviously is wrong, because it is not a game at all. (Not even multiplayer notepad.)
Those "games" miss some essential elements of what's the definition of a game.
There is neither something to play with (except maybe other humans), nor are there defined goals. And there's especially no basic fun creating mechanism in it.
Also, graphics and plot are way too emphasized in TFS.
In reality, graphics are part of what is called "aesthetics". Something that also
Re: (Score:2)
Plot gets you interested in playing the game ....
Graphics/Sound/interface/engine let you suspend disbelief, and succeed well if they don't get in the way (a bad interface, or engine makes the gameplay annoying)
The mechanics have to engage you in order for you to continue playing
The social aspects will extend the gameplay because people are not bots and act in ways the you never expect ....
Some of the older games I still play are purely down to an engine and interface that do not annoy/get in the way, and en
Drama writes plot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Games could always get away without having a decent plot, just as they can today, so I don't think much has changed there. I mean, you can't possibly say with a straight face that Doom, or Age of Empires, or Super Mario Bros had great plots, and those were all classic games.
I also wouldn't say that there's a lack of plot in games today. Lots of games are still about telling a great story (RPGs, Heavy Rain, the Halo series, Bioshock) just as much as they are about fun gameplay. There are still both games wit
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Plot... I will miss you (Score:5, Interesting)
I played WoW for the arenas and always laughed to myself at the nerds who cared about the backstory of Archimonde and blah blah blah. The plot in these games is just a device to move the game forward. A boss that respawns every week and exists in infinitely many instances does not make for an interesting plot. When I want good stories, I read books.
Re: (Score:2)
To each his own.
I don't have much time for playing games these days, but almost all of my favorite games had great stories: from Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Zork, Wing Commander Series to Syberia, Deus Ex and Freelancer.
Playing the first Dune game (the one madde by Cryo in 1992) got me into reading the books.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a funny statement, because arenas are pretty much the single most loathed feature in all of WoW, and are regularly blamed for every idiotic PvE balance mistake Blizzard makes. I always laugh at people who waste time in that lolesport instead of playing what the game was really built for.
But then, different people play for different reasons. Nothing really new or interesting about that, except you don't seem to realize it. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Zelda still does a pretty good job of story line.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the days of lousy graphics and limited features, a story had to draw you in. Now there are so many other components that a good story isn't important.
At the time these games were written, they used what the state-of-the-art in graphics and sound technology was. 256 color 320x200 VGA color graphics mode was the "big thing" around the late 1980's/early 1990's for desktop PC's. Having a sampled sound or Adlib sound drivers was also a big deal (Professional Golf "RealSound"). Even having a GUI style men
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a new dream though. It isn't as big as the old dream, but it could be potentially more fun. Game Master driven CRPGS. I know they have them already, but I'd want
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Game Master driven CRPGS. I know they have them already, but I'd want to do one well. Theoretically, you can get a better experience through a computer than Pencil and Paper. And with computer you can play with people who all aren't in the same physical location. This dream isn't big enough to pursue however. I have so many things on my plate that I want to do.
You don't have to do it.
http://www.rpgobjects.com/index.php?c=orpg [rpgobjects.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I spent thousands of hours over a decade and a half trying to code MMORPGS. Now that MMORPGS are out and boring, my ultimate dreams for video games is sorta deflated.
I agree with you, I've often thought my enjoyment of my hours on EQ had more to do with my desire to have such a game then actual merit. But it occurs to me the potential for a truly engaging and wonderful MMORPG could still be realized as %99.99 of what is out there is all derived from the same basic formula.
Re:Nahh (Score:5, Insightful)
"before multiplayer"? Weren't both Space War and Pong multiplayer-only?
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't both Space War and Pong multiplayer-only?
Heh. Excellent point. I'd mod you up if I had any points.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah shoot 'em up games get boring after a while. Like you have the Nazi Zombie add on via DLC, and you spend over an hour killing Nazi Zombies. So what is the point, you just keep killing the Nazi Zombies and they keep throwing more at you. No thing to get around, no variation, no victims to try and save, no pause in the Nazi Zombies regenerating so you get to move out of the sniper spot to find a new one and advance on the Nazi Zombie castle or whatever.