Matthew on 2/9/2011 at 19:59
Screw all you 'four dudes in one square' squares, Hired Guns 4 life yo
Yakoob on 2/9/2011 at 22:56
Blah when I said rehashes I did mean ports, semantics. This argument is stupid and is derailing the thread, so lets drop it.
MOAR DRAGUNZ!!!
june gloom on 2/9/2011 at 23:26
Semantics means nothing when you're describing two wildly different things.
But yes, this argument is fucking stupid.
Papy on 3/9/2011 at 02:55
Quote Posted by Renzatic
A better analogy would be like saying we should stop playing boardgames, because computers can do all kinds of crazy stuff like games with thousands of little soldiers being rendered in realtime 3D graphics and stuff. Boardgames are just pewter bullshit.
No, it's another wrong analogy. First, from a pure visual aspect, boardgames have a much, much better "screen resolution" than monitors. Not being able to clearly see all the terrain with all the pieces at the same time, meaning having to constantly scroll to see the whole game, is no fun.
Second, playing with physical things is fun. Also, the weight and space taken by physical items give an additional feedback about the situation compared to just a number on a screen. It helps the player "feel" the game instead of just crunching numbers.
Third, and the most important, human interaction is a lot better when you can view the game and your opponents at the same time. If you all play side by side while everyone's looking at a TV, a lot of the interaction is lost. It's even worse if you everyone has a monitor in front of them, effectively hiding them. (oh, and playing on the Internet is like masturbating while having phone sex. It's better than nothing, but it's really not my first choice.)
Boardgames do offer things that computer games have difficulties to offer. So the question is : what a (real-time) game with 90 degrees turns and square movement can offer that a game with free 3D view and movements can't?
Thirith on 3/9/2011 at 11:01
Quote Posted by Papy
So the question is : what a (real-time) game with 90 degrees turns and square movement can offer that a game with free 3D view and movements can't?
It's got a certain elegant simplicity. Complex isn't always better, realistic isn't always better. There's an enjoyment that comes from exploring rectangular mazes that you can - and have to - map on paper yourself. A lot of that enjoyment may be nostalgic in nature, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Eldron on 3/9/2011 at 11:21
And why does boardgames still often limit movement to grids or tiles or even one-dimensional movement when its fully possible to make them all free-positional.
dexterward on 3/9/2011 at 11:37
Quote Posted by Thirith
It's got a certain elegant simplicity
Word.
It also ties to turn-based systems - there`s kind of precision and control you`ll never be able to execute in real time. Which is why for me GoldBox combat will always be superior to that "pause" malarkey from Baldur`s Gate.
All this does not stop me from appreciating the greatness of FO3, Risen, Arx and others of course...
Pemptus on 3/9/2011 at 11:38
Come on guys, this "discussion" is getting silly.
2D platformers have also been made because of technical limitations. Are they irrelevant now that we have full 3D?
Quote:
So the question is : what a (real-time) game with 90 degrees turns and square movement can offer that a game with free 3D view and movements can't?
A different style and way of playing.
It's all been said before anyway.
Papy on 3/9/2011 at 16:42
Quote Posted by Thirith
It's got a certain elegant simplicity. Complex isn't always better, realistic isn't always better.
I agree that complex and realistic are not always better. I think video games have a tendency to use complexity to hide a lack of depth and to use realistic and cluttered graphics to hide a lack of things to do. But a game is about learning (in a broad sense) and when there is nothing new to learn, the game becomes boring. Simplicity in a video game becomes elegance only if there is depth behind it.
After watching the gameplay demo, my impression was that it's the same as Dungeon Master, only with better graphics. Well... Been there, done that. I don't think I have anything new to learn with that kind of gameplay and better graphics won't be enough to hold my interest.
Quote Posted by Thirith
There's an enjoyment that comes from exploring rectangular mazes that you can - and have to - map on paper yourself.
Again, I agree. Having to use a pen and a piece of paper is to me a way to make the video game kind of pop out of the computer and make it more tangible. But the problem is that what is fun at first can quickly becomes really tedious. Having to draw a 32x32 grid may be fun, having to another of those 32x32 grid after having already drawn 15 is just repetitive work.
Quote Posted by Thirith
A lot of that enjoyment may be nostalgic in nature, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.
It is valid, but nostalgia fades away real fast. I bought Dungeon Master 2 in big part because of nostalgia. My thought was, it was fun then, it should be fun now. But the fact is although it was fun at first, after an hour or so it became boring.
To me, if the goal is to make a two hours game to relive a childhood memory, then that's great idea. If their goal is to make a game for people who never played a 3d RPG before (basically for people who think video games are those things they play on Facebook), then again that's a great idea. After all, an adult who is learning how to read will start with a child book, not with War and Peace. But if the goal is to make a new Dungeon Master, thinking it was good then so it should be good now, it's just a bad idea.
Quote Posted by Eldron
And why does boardgames still often limit movement to grids or tiles or even one-dimensional movement when its fully possible to make them all free-positional.
Because when you spend most of your time manipulating a ruler and arguing over half a centimeter, the game becomes tedious. Are you saying that 3d is so complex that it makes the game tedious?
Ok. I admit that sometimes it is. My mother played a few 2d puzzle games on her computer so I tried to make her play Portal. She couldn't. It was the first time she saw a 3d game and she just couldn't understand it. After 15 minutes, she was still unable to move the mouse and press a key to advance at the same time. It made the game tedious and she gave up. But personally, I'm not my mother and I have no difficulties with "mouselook".
Quote Posted by Pemptus
2D platformers have also been made because of technical limitations. Are they irrelevant now that we have full 3D?
The problem with (real) 3d platformers is that my monitor is still 2d. Because of that, evaluating distance is difficult. 3d offers better possibilities when it comes to paths and finding solutions, but it loses the precision of 2d, which is a big loss. In a way, 2d and 3d are not about the same kind of gameplay.
In the case of free movement compared to grid based movement, the only thing lost, as far as I can see, is simplicity. To me, Ultima Underworld made Dungeon Master irrelevant (ok not exactly because there was no party management in UU, but I'm only talking about graphiscs). To use an analogy, did Albert Camus made Disney's book for children irrelevant? I guess not because there are still books for children on the market, but he did made Disney's book for children irrelevant to me.
Sulphur on 4/9/2011 at 06:56
Okay, whomever brought up the side-scroller analogy, that's a poor argument.
Platformers/side-scrollers were borne out of technical restrictions, yeah. But they weren't trying to emulate first person movement. These, on the other hand, were reaching for the whole first person pie, and not quite getting it. A better analogy is Doom and System Shock without mouselook. They were fun regardless, but would've played so much better with it. Only oldschool 'purists' would play FPSes with just the keyboard today.
This isn't to shit on anyone's opinion. I still play SS today, after all. But if someone were to go and make an SS 1 1/2 tomorrow, with new tech but sans mouse look or the other accoutrements/refinements the genre has since gained, I'd turn my nose up at it too. It's just a matter of opinion, my opinion being that your opinion is a touch weird, you freaks. :P
