Topic: are we going down the tubes? (Read 4774 times)

FatherTed · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2003, 04:45:17 pm »

Quote:

Similarly, with old games, a simple 2D piece of 8-bit artwork can represent a vast castle. Your hero is a little ball of pixels with a few animations. In the case of some of the brilliant Infocom games of the 80's, we had NO graphics at all! But today, everything has to be rendered in detailed 3D, modeled and textured, animated and shaded. The effort to create the same castle is now much, much greater. You need more people, more money, and more time.

And usually the game itself takes a backseat to the glitz. To me, computer gaming reached it's apex in the early and mid-90's. SFC1 and 2 were the exception in that I've been disappointed with just about every game I've bought since Civ2 came out(if I had a machine capable of running DOS, I'd still have Civ1 and Panzer General on the hard drive). They weren't flashy, but they had one helluva good engine under the hood. I still play Civ2(approaching 7 years on the various hard drives I've gone through), simply because with literally hundreds of player mods, you never have to worry about fighting the same campaign twice. It's always different. That is usually the bane of any game, in that most people never bother to play online. They get through the campaign, or life, or whatever a few times, and it loses its appeal.

For example, I would have forgotten about SFC over a year ago if I hadn't discovered the D2. I'd fought every campaign on EAW for every race, from Captain to Admiral level. There were no surprises left. I knew exactly where my opponent would enter the map, what I had to do to get the victory in the mission, and could do it without even thinking. If it weren't for the challenge of taking on a human player(and usually getting blown away

), and the fact that Evil Dave inflicted his missions on us, I wouldn't be here typing this right now.

Are the games better today than they were 10 years ago? Not really. But one thing the PC will always have over a console is that the great games will always have people like Evil Dave who can inject new life into them, and besides, where else can you find the "J'inn, You Bastard!" thread?

Belchfire · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2003, 05:48:42 pm »

Informatiom is a powerful tool and amazing to what insight you can gain into the gaming industry and their products. With all hobbies I have been involved with I always sought out the most reputable and knowlegable sources for info. Considering the daunting task of choosing a game to buy I found myself lost since I had little information on the products in front of me. The first game I ever bought was liked by everyone I spoke with and had also been game of the year. This was a no brainer. After that I realized that some publication would be needed to sort out the trash from the treasure. There are many great games out there as there are many that would serve better as a coaster. My point is that after buying an outside magazine to sort out and narrow down what is worth my time, many games that would not normally interest me gave me many hours of pleasure, even this one.

Be Well

Belch

Alexander1701 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2003, 09:47:10 pm »

It's sad but true that most high-selling games have shinyness and only shinyness going for them. Tomb raider, for example, is not a particularly well written game. Really, its only well-drawn. As another example, take the old descent series. Descents 2-4 were Descent 1 with better graphics. It IS what sells, because people assume bad graphics means old means not much effort.

Of course that's just my oppinion, I could be wrong.

SFC3 still rules

Alexander

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #25 on:** February 23, 2003, 09:52:31 pm »

<in a nutshell>
Too many "suits" listenning to too many accountants because of the pressure of having shareholders.

SPQR Renegade001

Re: are we going down the tubes?

Mavolic

Re: are we going down the tubes?

News: