|
|
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61942/132 |  Droniac (108) Feb 26, 2007 - 12:43 pm
| You've written a good and interesting article. It'd be interesting to see developers try and come up with a more sensible way of controlling games, but I certainly DO NOT want games to get any easier.
When I say that, I'm referring to the singleplayer component of games which has been dumbed down significantly over the years. FPS games have become ridiculously easy and short (Call of Duty vs MoH:AA? Prey vs Half Life?) - same deal for RTS games (Dawn of War vs Battle Realms?) - same for RPGs (Neverwinter Nights 2 vs Baldur's Gate, or heck: even Neverwinter Nights 1!) - and hack & slash games (Titan Quest vs Diablo?) - and even adventure games (the new Sam&Max games vs Monkey Island?)
Now Monkey Island was ridiculously hard so I don't much mind them dumbing it down a bit, but the new Sam&Max games are (relatively speaking) so easy it's like watching a movie rather than playing an adventure game. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/62548/155 | Droniac (108) Feb 26, 2007 - 12:13 pm
| It started out fairly good, but eventually turned into much more of a "niche-blog style" post than an article for a major gaming website like FiringSquad.
You might have edited it already, but the article is still riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. If you're not a native English speaker (like myself) then the least you can do is use a basic spelling checker (like the ones found in Firefox 2, MS Word & Google Toolbar) prior to posting.
Still some of your article was pretty good, e.g.: your final few sentences.
PS: The human eye can see well beyond 60 fps. In fact, fighter pilots could spot AND identify an airplane on a single frame displayed for just 1/220th of a second (in between all black frames)... if you want to know more then head over here: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/62001/168 | Droniac (108) Feb 26, 2007 - 11:47 am
| | Well-written, albeit maybe a tad too short. Still a good entry worth a decent score. This made me want to play Dystopia, most of it sounds a lot like Tribes: Vengeance, but not as bug-ridden - which is good :) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61804/153 | Droniac (108) Feb 26, 2007 - 09:31 am
| Ooh be certain to reply with the results! Supreme Commander has become this age's benchmarking tool... I wonder if a PC like yours can handle a 2-hour long multiplayer match with several tens of thousands of units in action :p
America's Army probably is the most realistic FPS game indeed - I couldn't name any more realistic anyway, although Day of Defeat and Red Orchestra are pretty realistic too. Never been into realistic FPS games enough to know which one is the most realistic, I tend to prefer fast-paced shooters like Quake/UT/PK. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61804/153 | Droniac (108) Feb 25, 2007 - 01:30 pm » Edited on Feb 25, 2007 - 01:30 pm
| Kessandra, have you ever tried any MMORPGs besides World of Warcraft? It's a rather blunt generalization to say that all of them are enjoyable for the first 30 levels, especially considering the fact that some of them don't even know leveling systems.
I agree that classic MMORPGs like WoW, EverQuest & Lineage grow stale after their initial niceties, but there are other kinds of MMORPGs too. You really can't list games like Guild Wars, Shattered Galaxy & EVE Online along the likes of WoW & EQ...
Any game would turn stale after many successive years of playing it. That's why it's nice to just take a break from playing a particular game (or even genre) and trying something else every now and then.
I don't recall anything innovative about Ghost Recon, SWAT 4 and America's Army, but feel free to enlighten me - I don't know much of anything about those games. BattleField was not truly innovative, it was merely the first popular game of it's sort (Starsiege: Tribes (1998!) anyone?).
I still see plenty of recent innovative FPS games around, but that may be because I seem to enjoy vastly different FPS games than you do. Half Life 2 was undoubtedly innovative, Prey was most certainly innovative, WarSow is a very innovative game, even Quake 4 brought a fair few innovations along with it.
I highly doubt Halo 3 or ET:QW will come forth with anything innovative. Anyone who likes those kinds of games will probably find them to be a breath of fresh air nonetheless... simply because it's new.
I have no doubt future FPS games will bring further innovation, just look at games like Project: Offset & Savage 2... on that note, I can't wait for Project: Offset to come out!
PS: Woa nice video card ;p
You really should give the Supreme Commander demo a spin, if only to see how good it looks & performs on your new system. ;) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61804/153 | Droniac (108) Feb 25, 2007 - 04:28 am » Edited on Feb 25, 2007 - 04:29 am
| Your entry offers some valid points as to the flaws of World of Warcraft, although some of the other points you tried to make were a tad questionable.
I'm no fan of World of Warcraft or MMOs like it, which is why I can appreciate most of your entry. The signpost quests, the rather unusual jobs you have to perform, dragging out gameplay well beyond what is enjoyable, etc...
Unfortunately a fair portion of your entry is also highly exaggerated and makes this read more like hate mail than a sarcastic stab at a popular, yet inherently flawed, game.
Marriages broken, careers destroyed, financial bankruptcy? You're a WoW player so you should know that the exact opposite is also true. MMOs have forged relationships and marriages. MMOs have been a source of income for people. MMOs have actually provided people with careers (e.g.: guild leaders being hired for management positions due to their guild leading experience)...
Still a decent read, 7/10.
(Note: this was not intended as a reply to your comment - I screwed up, argh : Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61804/153 | Droniac (108) Feb 25, 2007 - 04:16 am
| There's been plenty of innovation in the FPS genre, if you cannot see that then you aught to try playing Doom again - see how far FPS games have come since then... There's a world of difference just between Doom and Quake 2, let alone Doom and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory - or better yet Doom and Savage. The gameplay has changed dramatically over the years, especially in comparison to Doom which did not even offer full motion control.
Besides, it's not like innovation is needed to make a game enjoyable. If it was needed, then no one would like Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty 2 or Red Alert 2 (and so on) - because they're all games that merely copied from other, already existing, games.
If you really find that FPS games are turning stale then you should try playing a wider variety of games. You're severely limiting the amount of fun you can enjoy by sticking solely to FPS gaming. Try playing an RTS, RPG, TBS, Adventure, Space-Sim, etc. for a change. FPS games aren't the only PC games... Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/12941/131 | Droniac (108) Feb 22, 2007 - 04:35 pm
| It's an interesting, and well-written read, but I have to disagree with the entire concept of your post. In my opinion there is no such thing as a "perfect MMO" - if only because something of such nature is entirely subjective and will mean something entirely different to different people.
An example to explain my reasoning: Some people would think of completely unforgiving PvP gameplay (like EVE Online) when thinking of the "perfect MMO", whereas others would think of a game with little to no PvP implementation at all, yet others again would prefer an open, but regulated & forgiving form of PvP (e.g.: World of Warcraft)... and so on.
I'd have to agree that Guild Wars probably does strike the best balance in terms of combining all MMO gameplay elements together in an enjoyable whole for nearly any kind of gamer.
And yet I still find myself looking back more fondly at less forgiving and more PvP-focused MMOs such as EVE Online & 10SIX. I'd still rather play those games than Guild Wars, in spite of it's greater balance of PvE/PvP elements and whatnot. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/3 | Droniac (108) Feb 20, 2007 - 01:44 am
| | We who made it have to wait for a while, Round 2 doesn't begin for a few weeks. In the meantime everyone else will be trying to get into Round 2 by participating in the 2nd Preliminary of Round 1, which will start on the 21st. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61707/85 | Droniac (108) Feb 18, 2007 - 08:11 am
| I have to disagree with you, for the most part anyway.
Yes, every piece of software a console owner purchases is running the best the system can handle. No, that is not necessarily - or even usually - full detail. A vast amount of console games nowadays is released on the PC as well - and the PC always has the high, very high & ultra high detail options that consoles lack. Consoles are essentially stuck in medium detail. As such, you're never getting the most out of your game, if you're really that interested in graphics.
Commenting on Crysis right now is impossible, because there's no method of testing it on your PC. That said: I wouldn't be surprised if a PC from 2004 (such as my own) were to be able to run Crysis in mediocre detail, with most of your effects enabled. If only for the fact that a PC from 2004 can still run nearly every modern game in high detail.
Yes after 5 years you'll have to lower settings, but I already explained that when compared to console gaming (which is stuck with medium to low detail permanently) that's not so bad, in the article above.
I vastly prefer being able to choose my own performance and visual detail in any game, rather than getting no say in the matter at all. That's one of PC gaming's strong points, especially for gamers like myself who are interested in competitive play and don't much care for the amount of detail on a leaf in an intense multiplayer fight.
Additionally, in a straight out comparison, it's only fair to assume that one uses a PC to the PS3's limits - which means lowering settings to PS3 level as well. A game 5 years from now at medium detail will still look significantly better than a game right now at full detail, especially with the system I assembled because it supports future technologies: DirectX 10.
Yes, one could argue about how comparing the specs is slightly unfair. Although it has to be mentioned that recent consoles are more media-centers & PC-like than ever - and their hardware resembles that.
And in fact, the PS3 does run other things behind the games. That's why a significant portion of it's RAM (64 MB of it's mere 256 MB) is dedicated to the cross media bar, at all times.
I liked your bit of commentary about playing a game at it's best possible quality. Yes, if you want to do that then you'll have to upgrade in those 5 years time. But how many PC gamers are like that really? Very few, the ones I do know I can count on one hand...
You've also managed to forget about overclocking. Most gamers who are all about graphics, will have overclocked PCs - because it's much less expensive (and equally effective as) than upgrading. All you need is some nice cooling units (not too expensive nowadays) and some knowledge of PCs - et voila: your PC has just doubled it's performance. It's something you won't see happening with a PS3, if only for the fact you can't even change your visual detail in games so there's really no point - games will remain roughly equally ugly/beautiful during it's lifetime.
Then there's another interesting factor to PS3 gaming. You see, if you want to get the best out of your PS3 games, then you'll have to dig much deeper into your wallet than merely purchasing a PS3 and some games.
The PS3 now comes with some amazing HD-TV support - so if you want to get everything out of it, then prepare to fork over well in excess of 1000 US Dollars for a good HD-TV that supports the PS3's technology fully. By contrast: you can get the very best of the best out of a 15" CRT monitor from the last century in any PC game. And even if you want optimal visual quality at decent resolutions, a mere 200 US dollars is enough for a more than viable 19" TFT monitor.
A further note on PC component pricing:
It's currently actually a rather inexpensive time to be upgrading your PC. But if you want to upgrade, then you're better off waiting a couple of months for the new Intel processors and ATi/Nvidia cards to release. That aught to further decrease the amount of money you have to shell out for some incredibly good hardware. The PC I assembled in the article could well drop 100-200 euro in price - and if you replace the video card by one of Nvidia's upcoming budget DX10 cards then you'll be looking at even lower price tags. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61707/85 | Droniac (108) Feb 18, 2007 - 07:17 am
| | Anyone in the UK will probably happily skip out on the PlayStation 3 anyway. A PS3 costs a whopping 525 British Pounds there, which is around 1020 US Dollars & 800 euro. You can still get the PC I assembled for the exact same price there however, so the price difference were to drop to a mere 280 euro. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61707/85 | Droniac (108) Feb 18, 2007 - 06:38 am
| Actually if you assemble your own PC then you already qualify for the OEM version of Windows Vista - so then the Ultimate edition would cost roughly 150 euro.
As I mentioned before, didn't include the operating system because I was talking about an upgrade - anyone with a PC has Windows already and Vista is certainly not a recommended purchase right now. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61707/85 | Droniac (108) Feb 12, 2007 - 05:00 pm
| I'd have to agree with imfagentsamfisher here. I tend to prefer PC RPGs (Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Sacred) and Adventures (Monkey Island games, Sam&Max) over those found on consoles myself.
There certainly are games that just play a lot better on consoles than on PCs, such as sports games, racing games, most flying games & beat 'em up games. Granted, I'm not really a fan of any of those so the choice for me is simple: I stick with the platform that offers me the games I like - and to this day that platform remains the PC.
The choice of your platform doesn't just depend on it's pure power and cost, it also depends on your gameplay preferences.
If you like to play complex and difficult games - then you'll probably tend to stick to PC gaming. If you like accessible and fast games - then you'll likely be more of a console fan.
Similarly your genre preferences aught to way heavily as well... e.g.: an RTS gamer would be unlikely to pick up a console, whereas someone who loves playing platform games probably wouldn't play games on his/her PC. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61594/81 | Droniac (108) Feb 09, 2007 - 01:09 pm
| First off: nice piece of writing :)
I somewhat agree with you, but also don't.
There was certainly something special about gaming in those days (pre-2001 basically) and somehow nearly every other game turned into a truly memorable experience that everyone aught to have tried.
Nowadays, the vast majority of games can't possibly provide that amazing "chill down your spine" feeling that games like Unreal Tournament and Starcraft did back in the days... but some still do! (Company of Heroes, Neverwinter Nights 2, Supreme Commander)
In the FPS department however, there's been precious little awesome gaming recently...
The most recent FPS game that actually made me enjoy a frag like the UT demo did when I first played it, is 3 years old: UT2004.
But I don't think the problem is innovation. It's just that all the recent FPS games have had very obvious flaws, that totally detract from their immersion & potential.
Quake 4 made it nigh impossible to join servers, Battlefield 2 just wasn't very fun (imo), Enemy Territory was inferior to it's predecessor in all respects, F.E.A.R. was too demanding (and simplistic online), etc.
I'm still hoping that Epic learned their lesson from UT and UT2004 - and are on their ways to completing yet another classic (named UT3) that belongs to be mentioned right alongside names such as Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament.
All they have to do is get it playable on current-day PCs (something they're obviously working on, considering the fact that they're trying to get it to work on Intel integrated graphics), without ANY major bugs, featuring proper multiplayer support like previous UTs, but featuring better (more spacious, not messed up with useless junk) environments & more playable than the UT2k editions. If they get all that right and manage to capture the UT feel (through gameplay, music & visual style) then I'm certain they'll have a winner, regardless of it's innovative aspects. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61707/85 | Droniac (108) Feb 09, 2007 - 12:32 pm » Edited on Feb 09, 2007 - 12:34 pm
| As I mentioned above: i specifically left the operating system out, because I was doing it from the perspective of an upgrade. If I were to upgrade now, I would most certainly not purchase Windows Vista - my Windows XP is more than capable still and there's no need to switch to Vista anytime soon... besides, anyone who can read this already has a functioning operating system.
I doubt you'll be able to just dominate people with the whole Live Anywhere thing. The way I understood it, they'll be carefully balancing Live Anywhere capable games so that PC gamers won't have a massive advantage. I wonder how they'll attempt to do that though, because another developer (Webzen) tried and gave up: Huxley will no longer feature PvP between PC and Xbox360 gamers.
(EDIT: Oops, forgot to press "Reply to this" :o) Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61849/73 | Droniac (108) Feb 09, 2007 - 05:23 am
| A very good read!
Another effective means of introducing new players more casually and less painfully would be to incorporate an automated match-making service linked to a statistics tracker.
I'd say UT3 would be a great candidate: use the built-in statistics tracking to roughly determine a player's level of skill - so that the match-making service can put players of roughly equal level of skill in various match-making enabled servers.
It should at least prevent the polar opposites (uber-skilled and total newbie) from being placed against one another, which should make for a more comfortable experience for less experienced/talented players. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
