KAN and Ace, version who knows....

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Um, I guess this thread should be locked before it evolves into inter-generation fanwank contest betwen me and Ace Pace. :P

*mumbles* New games suck *mumbles* They still made good games during my day *mumbles* Folks didn't play craps like 'The Sims' back then *mumbles* Kids today! *cough, cough* These old bones need some warm sunlight. Now where's my walking stick?

(but I can still post in this thread?)

[Ace Pace]

Um, I guess this thread should be locked before it evolves into inter-generation fanwank contest betwen me and Ace Pace. :P

*mumbles* New games suck *mumbles* They still made good games during my day *mumbles* Folks didn't play craps like 'The Sims' back then *mumbles* Kids today! *cough, cough* These old bones need some warm sunlight. Now where's my walking stick?

(but I can still post in this thread?)

Bugger locking, if you agree, I shall split this convo for argument.

New games do not suck, old generation tech did NOT allow for cinematic games such as Half Life 2, or FEAR, or even Silent Hunter 3. These are games that COULDN'T have been made with old tech, couldn't have been CONCIEVED with the earlier notion of games.

That 'Crap' you speak of is the single most sucessful item in all time, nearly beating out the Commodore 64 in units sold. If you deride Sims, deride Tycoon games, for their basicly the same, build an area/family, maintain sales/maintain Sims. Now then again, I won't claim its not boring at some stage, but again, its something that couldn't happen a few years ago.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Bugger locking, if you agree, I shall split this convo for argument.

New games do not suck, old generation tech did NOT allow for cinematic games such as Half Life 2, or FEAR, or even Silent Hunter 3. These are games that COULDN'T have been made with old tech, couldn't have been CONCIEVED with the earlier notion of games.

Presentation, yes. But gameplay-wise, come on, where's the creativity?

Ideally, new tech should enable excellent gameplay to be presented in spectacular fashion. Alas, that's mostly not the case today.

Take a look at sword of Samurai, for example. It is not just an 'action game', but perfecly combines the action sequences with strategic elements to achieve long-term goal. I would love to see such gameplay being represented in modern tech. Alas, such thing is getting rarer today.

That's why my favorite gaming period is actually during 1996 to 2000; it was where gamers were bored with multimedia gimmicks (CD-ROM, FMV) being packaged with NO gameplay (anyone remember Myst? Or Cyberia?). It was also the time when developers had learned and actually made some efforts to combine those beautiful graphics with nice gameplay; thus we seen nice gems like EF2000, Deus EX, Fallout, Total Air War, Team Apache, Planescape: Torment, Heroes of Might and Magic series, and European Air War.

Too bad, I have yet to see such period repeated. Maybe, I guess maybe, when photo-realistic graphic becomes nothing more than commodity, we may see the return of creative game design and excellent gameplay.

To be fair, there are appreciable attempts like LOMAC and IL-2 Sturmovik, but still, where's the dynamic campaign like what you have in EF2000 or Falcon 4.0? Where's the tactical/strategic involvement like those in Total Air War or Mig Alley? (where we can make decision what target should be destroyed, and those decision actually influences the flow of the campaign).

And to be fair again, games can be nice despite being based on the same old formula again (FPS and RTS); for example, WarCraft III and StarCraft are enjoyable RTS; Half-Life 2 is actually a nice FPS. But after playing HL2, frankly I don't feel compelled to play the stupid DOOM 3; where the enemy is as stupid and predictable as those in Wolfenstein 3D, where the difficulty doesn't come from clever enemy AI, but from not discovering yet the predictable behaviour of the monsters.

That 'Crap' you speak of is the single most sucessful item in all time, nearly beating out the Commodore 64 in units sold. If you deride Sims, deride Tycoon games, for their basicly the same, build an area/family, maintain sales/maintain Sims. Now then again, I won't claim its not boring at some stage, but again, its something that couldn't happen a few years ago.

Yes, 'The Sims' sold very well, but it doesn't mean it's a good game. Myst also sold well, and so does Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Boyzone, N'Sync, MacDonalds, and Pepsi.

Come on, Ace. The Sims may be interesting for a short while, but it gets old real quick; repeating the same clicking all over again to do the *mundane* task to keep the character happy. That ain't no definition of 'game', m'boy. At least not on my book.

If designers decide to make a watered-down strategy, why not taking examples from Fragile Allegiance, where the routine game tasks actually changed and become more varied as the game is progressing? Not to mention the option of letting the AI to take over the mundane things as the picture get bigger.

Sorry, but game publisher need to learn from the old days. Those generic, crappy, watered-down games may sell well to the 'mainstream audience' (same like boys band and Pepsi), but in order to appeal real gamers, they need to give more.

[Ace Pace]

Presentation, yes. But gameplay-wise, come on, where's the creativity?

Ideally, new tech should enable excellent gameplay to be presented in spectacular fashion. Alas, that's mostly not the case today.

Gameplay wise creativity? I fear I shall have to club you with a Clue-O-Meter.

Half Life 2: Dynamic AI, PHYSICS.
FEAR: Best Squad AI out there. Beat it using another game, I dare you. You know what? I double dare you, name the game and I will make all efforts inside Israel to aquire it.

Take a look at sword of Samurai, for example. It is not just an 'action game', but perfecly combines the action sequences with strategic elements to achieve long-term goal. I would love to see such gameplay being represented in modern tech. Alas, such thing is getting rarer today.

For that? Come on, TOTAL WAR, You're just ignoring all those nice games, another example is Sparta TW(or was it another series?) RTS game where you zoom down to take control of your avatar. Do I need to continue?

That's why my favorite gaming period is actually during 1996 to 2000; it was where gamers were bored with multimedia gimmicks (CD-ROM, FMV) being packaged with NO gameplay (anyone remember Myst? Or Cyberia?). It was also the time when developers had learned and actually made some efforts to combine those beautiful graphics with nice gameplay; thus we seen nice gems like EF2000, Deus EX, Fallout, Total Air War, Team Apache, Planescape: Torment, Heroes of Might and Magic series, and European Air War.

Too bad, I have yet to see such period repeated. Maybe, I guess maybe, when photo-realistic graphic becomes nothing more than commodity, we may see the return of creative game design and excellent gameplay.

Here, I agree, but then again, look where it gets us... We have reached the pinnacle in many genres, I honestly doubt you can make a better straight shooter then UT2K4, I doubt theres a better D&D based game then NWN, NOW is actully the time to expiriment. And you know what? People HAVE.

Half Life 2, rises again and again, suprisingly. Cinematic gameplay, as you said, IT IS NEW. There is your innnovation, matched with the most awesome graphics this side of the decade. I mean this is the time when people are getting jaded and YES, the games for people like us exist, Find them.

To be fair, there are appreciable attempts like LOMAC and IL-2 Sturmovik, but still, where's the dynamic campaign like what you have in EF2000 or Falcon 4.0? Where's the tactical/strategic involvement like those in Total Air War or Mig Alley? (where we can make decision what target should be destroyed, and those decision actually influences the flow of the campaign).

And to be fair again, games can be nice despite being based on the same old formula again (FPS and RTS); for example, WarCraft III and StarCraft are enjoyable RTS; Half-Life 2 is actually a nice FPS. But after playing HL2, frankly I don't feel compelled to play the stupid DOOM 3; where the enemy is as stupid and predictable as those in Wolfenstein 3D, where the difficulty doesn't come from clever enemy AI, but from not discovering yet the predictable behaviour of the monsters.

To be fair...its not simple, your dynamic campaigns whern't that dynamic, I honestly doubt there was a full scale war engine behind them. Nowdays, see my point above, we're peaking, and from that Peaking we get ALOT of innovative games, Katarami Diamara(sp, who can spell that game?!)

Theres not much here to argue, rather then agreement on the fact creativity IS dropping.

That 'Crap' you speak of is the single most sucessful item in all time, nearly beating out the Commodore 64 in units sold. If you deride Sims, deride Tycoon games, for their basicly the same, build an area/family, maintain sales/maintain Sims. Now then again, I won't claim its not boring at some stage, but again, its something that couldn't happen a few years ago.

Yes, 'The Sims' sold very well, but it doesn't mean it's a good game. Myst also sold well, and so does Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Boyzone, N'Sync, MacDonalds, and Pepsi.

Come on, Ace. The Sims may be interesting for a short while, but it gets old real quick; repeating the same clicking all over again to do the *mundane* task to keep the character happy. That ain't no definition of 'game', m'boy. At least not on my book.

So the idea of game is advancing, it may not fit our definition, but its there, its enjoyable for millions, who are we to stop it? ;)

If designers decide to make a watered-down strategy, why not taking examples from Fragile Allegiance, where the routine game tasks actually changed and become more varied as the game is progressing? Not to mention the option of letting the AI to take over the mundane things as the picture get bigger.

Sorry, but game publisher need to learn from the old days. Those generic, crappy, watered-down games may sell well to the 'mainstream audience' (same like boys band and Pepsi), but in order to appeal real gamers, they need to give more.

I'll throw out some pointers because I want to finsh this post.

You're exagerating every turn. I repeatedly pointed out how far game innovation is along today, I have to say, those old games, looking at them from my prespective, arn't that intresting. Its hard to immerse your self in say...a flight sim when the ground looks green.

How about this idea... old games were innovative because back then litterally everything was new, today its been done, and alot of the game ideas we have were tried...and failed, and maybe for a good reason.
I'll add more once I get back.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Presentation, yes. But gameplay-wise, come on, where's the creativity?

Ideally, new tech should enable excellent gameplay to be presented in spectacular fashion. Alas, that's mostly not the case today.

Gameplay wise creativity? I fear I shall have to club you with a Clue-O-Meter.

Half Life 2: Dynamic AI, PHYSICS.
FEAR: Best Squad AI out there. Beat it using another game, I dare you. You know what? I double dare you, name the game and I will make all efforts inside Israel to aquire it.

You missed my point, Ace. Sure, new features and enhancements are possible due to more computing power, like realistic physics in Half-Life 2, BUT....

...but in the end, it is still another first-person shooter. You're still scuttling around in 3D environment from one level to another. That's all.


If you're looking for creativity, take a look at Deus Ex, or System Shock, where there are multiple ways to win; when the game gives you the real feeling of being immersed in an 'adventure'; not by realistic graphics or physics, but by the great sense of freedom and interaction with the game universe, by the way the game universe react to your action, by the multiple ways of winning the game.

Furthermore, you were talking about enhancements in FPS, but is FPS the only way to play an action game? I still remember, during my day, people were still creative in making action games. Action game should not be limited to FPS alone. Where's action-based flightsim with excellent storyline and believable characters like Wing Commander? How about wild arcade action encapsuled in strategic movements like Star Control or Sid Meier's Pirates?

Take a look at sword of Samurai, for example. It is not just an 'action game', but perfecly combines the action sequences with strategic elements to achieve long-term goal. I would love to see such gameplay being represented in modern tech. Alas, such thing is getting rarer today.

For that? Come on, TOTAL WAR, You're just ignoring all those nice games, another example is Sparta TW(or was it another series?) RTS game where you zoom down to take control of your avatar. Do I need to continue?

Yes, we have Total War series and the likes, but those are still based on RTS premise. There are 'innovations' these days, but game publishers tend to play it safe and limit those innovations on the boundary of existing premises.

Ace, Total War is a nice attempt, and to be fair, it's a still nice RTS (with new little touch), but at its heart, it is still another RTS game.

You know Infogrames launched a modern remake of Sid Meier's Pirates? Try playing it, and you'll know what innovation I actually mean. And people were in that level of creativity during my gaming days. I don't mean that every games were made like Pirates (in fact, only Sword of Samurai was the only game similar to Pirates), but people were more dare to experiment during my days. There was a game named Star Control 2 way back in 1992, which perfectly blended RPG elements, great storyline, adventure, and excellent action sequences, which in overall gave the player probably the most memorable gaming experience ever.

And how about Fragile Allegiance? It is a strategy game of asteroid colonization. Sounds lame? Until you actually play it, you'll never know how addicting the gameplay is. Furthermore, the Fragile Allegiance successfully shows that real-time strategy doesn't have to be limited in Warcraft-style tactical combat.

That's why my favorite gaming period is actually during 1996 to 2000; it was where gamers were bored with multimedia gimmicks (CD-ROM, FMV) being packaged with NO gameplay (anyone remember Myst? Or Cyberia?). It was also the time when developers had learned and actually made some efforts to combine those beautiful graphics with nice gameplay; thus we seen nice gems like EF2000, Deus EX, Fallout, Total Air War, Team Apache, Planescape: Torment, Heroes of Might and Magic series, and European Air War.

Too bad, I have yet to see such period repeated. Maybe, I guess maybe, when photo-realistic graphic becomes nothing more than commodity, we may see the return of creative game design and excellent gameplay.

Here, I agree, but then again, look where it gets us... We have reached the pinnacle in many genres, I honestly doubt you can make a better straight shooter then UT2K4, I doubt theres a better D&D based game then NWN, NOW is actully the time to expiriment. And you know what? People HAVE.

Half Life 2, rises again and again, suprisingly. Cinematic gameplay, as you said, IT IS NEW. There is your innnovation, matched with the most awesome graphics this side of the decade. I mean this is the time when people are getting jaded and YES, the games for people like us exist, Find them.

Ace, you were talking about first-person shooters again. Yes, they may have some innovation, but they're still the same shooter again, where you do the same thing of roaming through 3D environment and shooting things up. See my point about action games above.

By the way, RPG is probably the only genre where developer/publisher still cares about gameplay. Just FYI, RPG once suffered from 'real-time FPS action' syndrome during 1996 (Stonekeep, Lands of Lore, The Elder Scrolls), until Fallout and Baldur's Gate taught people that RPG doesn't have to be in 3D to be great.

To be fair, there are appreciable attempts like LOMAC and IL-2 Sturmovik, but still, where's the dynamic campaign like what you have in EF2000 or Falcon 4.0? Where's the tactical/strategic involvement like those in Total Air War or Mig Alley? (where we can make decision what target should be destroyed, and those decision actually influences the flow of the campaign).

And to be fair again, games can be nice despite being based on the same old formula again (FPS and RTS); for example, WarCraft III and StarCraft are enjoyable RTS; Half-Life 2 is actually a nice FPS. But after playing HL2, frankly I don't feel compelled to play the stupid DOOM 3; where the enemy is as stupid and predictable as those in Wolfenstein 3D, where the difficulty doesn't come from clever enemy AI, but from not discovering yet the predictable behaviour of the monsters.

To be fair...its not simple, your dynamic campaigns whern't that dynamic, I honestly doubt there was a full scale war engine behind them. Nowdays, see my point above, we're peaking, and from that Peaking we get ALOT of innovative games, Katarami Diamara(sp, who can spell that game?!)

M'boy, who cares if the dynamic campaign is based on full scale war engine? In fact, IIRC the only game using a near-full war engine is DID's Total Air War (not sure about Falcon 4.0).

The thing is not whether the dynamic campaign is based on some Pentagon-scale war engine or not; the important thing is that dynamic campaign gives the player great feeling of involvement in the game; the player's performance during the missions actually affects how the campaign is progressing, so the player feels that she/he actually contributes something to the war. Not to mention that the player actually feels the result of her/his own success or failure. Fuck up a mission and the next mission will be likely to be harder; destroy an important airbase and enemy air opposition will be lighter, etc. And that doesn't mention replayablility.

Theres not much here to argue, rather then agreement on the fact creativity IS dropping.

It IS, Ace. See, that's my concern. I don't mind nice graphics and such, as long as the gameplay is still as excellent as those during the old days.

Have you played the Privateer remake? Privateer is an example of excellent gameplay where players have a great degree of freedom, while the universe (in game) reacts dynamically to the player's action. Now it is remade with modern graphics, I'm sure you wouldn't mind to play it!

Now, what I want to see is such creativity and attention to gameplay combined with modern graphics.

Yes, 'The Sims' sold very well, but it doesn't mean it's a good game. Myst also sold well, and so does Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Boyzone, N'Sync, MacDonalds, and Pepsi.

Come on, Ace. The Sims may be interesting for a short while, but it gets old real quick; repeating the same clicking all over again to do the *mundane* task to keep the character happy. That ain't no definition of 'game', m'boy. At least not on my book.

So the idea of game is advancing, it may not fit our definition, but its there, its enjoyable for millions, who are we to stop it? ;)

Enjoyable for millions. So are boys band, Britney Spears, and McDonalds. Remember the normal distribution curve; the majority of the people is average (average taste, average expecations, etc). Sony is also enjoyable by millions, but real audiophiles will never buy Sony. Instead, they will pick brand names like Adcom, Mission, Velodyne, or others that seldom heard by the majority of the consumers.

During my days, people who play computer games were small groups of enthusiast and hobbyst with demanding taste and expectations; we want computer games that will keep us glued to the screen until morning; we got bored easily so *clones* do not impress us (IMO it is also what differentiates us from console players).

But then, since the multimedia-craze in 1994, and also since the popularity of 'easy to play' games like the original Doom or Command & Conquer, games had reached the 'mainstream audience', ergo, the average consumers. Alas, most game publishers choose to completely ignore the 'real' gamers while preferring to wank the mainstream audience instead. Actually I don't mind if Sierra/Vivendi makes 'Barbe This' or 'Barbie That', but why, oh why do they have to abandon the adventure games like Gabriel Knight or Space Quest?

And Electronic Arts; I don't care if they wank The Sims to death, but why they had to close down Origin titles? Granted Ultima IX was a failure, but how about Wing Commander? Privateer? How about Jane's titles? Fuck Electronic Arts.

And worse, I still don't know exactly why, but there must be something wrong in gaming business model that small developers can't survive; completely handing out the market to the mainstream-wanking big publisher (and I hope the entire Electronic Arts board of director members will spend their lives in hell masturbating with sandpaper, listening to Backstreet Boys over and over again while being force-fed with endless supply of McDonald's).

This is not the case with recording industries. They can wank the boys band as much as they love, but independent artists like Basement Jaxx or Paul Oakenfold can still strive. Such big boys domination doesn't happen in stereo industries as well, as Klipsch and Adcom can still live to please the hardcore while Sony is giving blowjob to the mainstream.

I'll throw out some pointers because I want to finsh this post.

You're exagerating every turn. I repeatedly pointed out how far game innovation is along today, I have to say, those old games, looking at them from my prespective, arn't that intresting. Its hard to immerse your self in say...a flight sim when the ground looks green.

How about this idea... old games were innovative because back then litterally everything was new, today its been done, and alot of the game ideas we have were tried...and failed, and maybe for a good reason.
I'll add more once I get back.

See my writings above, Ace. I'm ranting because, unlike what happens in music industry or stereo market, computer games are now completely dictated by the big boys, which in turn, killing innovations and gameplay.

I will live in content if one of these conditions actually happens (or both):

(1) the big boys still care about gameplay and innovations, and actually producing good games (beside those for mainstream market).

(2) the gaming business model is like music industry or stereo market, where small (or not too big) developers can still strive and give the hardcore people what they want.


Unfortunately, today we have neither.