Re: Only strategy games appeal to me anymore
John Doe
...
> So has anyone else experienced this? With a good strategy game
> you can keep coming back even after you master the mechanics of
> the game. I own a ps3 and on occasion get tempted to pick up
> some of the older titles that look good but stop myself. Much
> easier just to rent movies than keep playing these once through
> games. I wonder if game is even the right term for them? maybe
> interactive movie?
Yes. I have never understood the appeal of once-through games.
Carolyn Gerlach
try mamedev.org and then rom center for side scrolling action shooting.
clundst
I can fully understand the appeal. With my limited free time and all
the 'really-cool-must-see-whiz-bang (tm)' games that come out on a
weekly basis I really want to sample everything. <grumpy old man>
Back in my day, a good computer game came out once every three months
AND YOU LIKED IT! </grumpy old man> It's hard to justify sinking tons
of time into a single experience.
I see both sides and try to ride the middle ground. I end up not
fully enjoying either. :(
Carl Lundstedt
UNL
John Doe
> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> JediSpork <jedisp... gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > So has anyone else experienced this? With a good strategy
>> > game you can keep coming back even after you master the
>> > mechanics of the game. I own a ps3 and on occasion get
>> > tempted to pick up some of the older titles that look good
>> > but stop myself. Much easier just to rent movies than keep
>> > playing these once through games. I wonder if game is even
>> > the right term for them? maybe interactive movie?
>>
>> Yes. I have never understood the appeal of once-through games.
>
> I can fully understand the appeal. With my limited free time
> and all the 'really-cool-must-see-whiz-bang (tm)' games that
> come out on a weekly basis I really want to sample everything.
> <grumpy old man> Back in my day, a good computer game came out
> once every three months AND YOU LIKED IT! </grumpy old man>
Computer games changed rapidly because computer gaming was a new
technology.
> It's hard to justify sinking tons of time into a single
> experience.
Replayability is a fundamental part of the best games in life.
Without replayability, every player would be a newbie, no one
would be a pro. Like with all social human activities, when
playing a modern multiplayer game, the pleasure comes more from
people than it comes from the game.
John Doe
> I do like to play solo in games and hope for better ai on
> upcoming strategy games but thats just practice for me when I
> play online. Some of my most memorable gaming moments have been
> sitting up til 3am playing starcraft with buddies.
Warcraft II was my first multiplayer experience. Playing 2v2 on
the tiny map "Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide". Over and over and
over again. As memorable as it gets. I usually just go with the
biggest multiplayer crowd in my genre of choice.
Rin Stowleigh
<jedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>StarCraft was one of the first pc games I've ever played. Since then
>I've played countless other games but strategy type games are the only
>ones I can go back to. I have a well reviewed rpg that I picked up on
>sale but I play for 5 minutes and just want to shut it off. Lately
>this is how I feel about any game that I play unless its a strategy
>game.
>
>I think this might be happening due to a few factors. I feel like I've
>"played" rpg's. I can only do the level up and save the world routine
>so many times. If I'm after a good story I would much rather just read
>a book. The fun factor of current games could be another issue.
>Growing up and other hobbies factor in also. Most games are targeted
>to younger guys that just want to see as much blood on the screen as
>possible.
>
>So has anyone else experienced this? With a good strategy game you can
>keep coming back even after you master the mechanics of the game. I
>own a ps3 and on occasion get tempted to pick up some of the older
>titles that look good but stop myself. Much easier just to rent movies
>than keep playing these once through games. I wonder if game is even
>the right term for them? maybe interactive movie?
I will just say that strategy games are not the only ones with replay
value; multiplayer gaming is the ultimate in replayability, and you
don't have to worry about AI because you are playing against human
intelligence, which is always superior.
But, I agree (for the most part) with what you and others have alluded
to regarding "once through" games. I'm not a big fan. Often times,
in modern games, I feel there are too many cutscenes and too much
story and not enough actual play. It's a double edged sword, because
there are so many players who want a deeper story/plot-line out
there.. so much that I've often felt I'm the minority. It's not that
I mind a story, I just don't want it to dominate the playing of the
game itself, which I see so often in RPGs and even action games
(especially the console-ports). Either way, with a story comes the
implication of a once-through game, or at least a once-through game
with minor variations on the story based on game decision branches.
The reason the variations will usually be only minor is because of the
exponential development resource required to develop all the branches
of the decision tree (at least when we consider story-related elements
like dialog, graphics and voice acting), and it is financially
infeasible for many game projects to spend a lot of time developing
branches of the decisions that few console will even realize is there
unless they go back through the game, intentionally selecting a
different path than what felt viscerally "right" to them the first
time through.
John Doe
...
> I will just say that strategy games are not the only ones with
> replay value; multiplayer gaming is the ultimate in
> replayability, and you don't have to worry about AI because you
> are playing against human intelligence, which is always
> superior.
That definitely applies to the more complex, unpredictable, and
probably especially to graphically oriented stuff.
> But, I agree (for the most part) with what you and others have
> alluded to regarding "once through" games. I'm not a big fan.
> Often times, in modern games, I feel there are too many
> cutscenes and too much story and not enough actual play. It's a
> double edged sword, because there are so many players who want a
> deeper story/plot-line out there.. so much that I've often felt
> I'm the minority. It's not that I mind a story, I just don't
> want it to dominate the playing of the game itself, which I see
> so often in RPGs and even action games (especially the
> console-ports). Either way, with a story comes the implication
> of a once-through game, or at least a once-through game with
> minor variations on the story based on game decision branches.
> The reason the variations will usually be only minor is because
> of the exponential development resource required to develop all
> the branches of the decision tree (at least when we consider
> story-related elements like dialog, graphics and voice acting),
> and it is financially infeasible for many game projects to spend
> a lot of time developing branches of the decisions that few
> console will even realize is there unless they go back through
> the game, intentionally selecting a different path than what
> felt viscerally "right" to them the first time through.
I do not like them wasting the time on a story when they could be
making money selling CD keys for online play. Maybe many story
lovers are those who steal the game for single player only. But I
do sympathize with people who cannot click fast, since frantic
action is what most online play is about (I do it with scripting).
For anyone like me who does not enjoy frantic clicking, be sure to
check out Forged Alliance "building templates". Hopefully it is a
sign of things to come.
Gandalf Parker
news:nottj5hi7hnfnvp2v...@4ax.com:
> I will just say that strategy games are not the only ones with replay
> value; multiplayer gaming is the ultimate in replayability, and you
> don't have to worry about AI because you are playing against human
> intelligence, which is always superior.
I wouldnt lock on multiplayer as being the ultimate in replayability
either. Ive had a number of games that were worthless 1 month after
released due to a posting of a "killer strategy". Yet others I still play
solo-play quite enjoyably due to many options, AI, and randomly generated
maps. Human opponents does tend to be better than AI but it doesnt always
improve game play IMHO.
There are, on the other hand, some games that can take years to get tired
of even if you never go MP (altho all the ones Im thinking of do have
it).
Master of Magic
Stars!
Space Empires IV (I wasnt all that impressed with SEV)
VGA Planets 3 (VGAP4 is in late beta and available also)
and my all time #1 favorite Dominions 3
All of those games involved enjoyable play just learning the game enough
to consider MP play which continued longer than many MP strategy games
Ive bought.
In particular Dom3 has been played for years and the forums still debate
new strategies. One of the quotes off of a Dom3 site says "As of
Dominions 3.21 there are 72 nations. You can find the nation which best
matches your type of play whether its barbarian horde, offensive,
defensive, researching, stealth, etc. And there are slots available to
take it up to 95 nations to make use of the many user created nation
mods. There are presently 2088 different units in the game, over 1000
pieces of equipment that can be given to them with various abilities, 709
magic sites to be searched for which can grant gold, magic gems, the
ability to recruit or summon other units, and some which have bad
effects. There is 9 areas of magic. Fire, Air, Earth, Water, Astral,
Death, Nature, Blood, and Holy. Spells are in the categories of
Conjuration, Alteration,Evocation, Construction (creating magic equipment
to give your commanders), Enchantment, Thaumaturgy, Blood Magic. And Holy
altho Holy usually doesnt need to be researched. Some spells are cast in
magic labs you build in a province, some are battlefield, and some are
global. There are 755 major spells."
It took me almost a year just to find out which of the unique nations
best fit my syle of play. And only now, three years later, am I starting
to use the many player made mods to extend the game into new territories
which has me expecting more years of enjoyment.
In case anyone is interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominions3
http://www.dom3minions.com/aboutDom3.htm
Gandalf Parker
--
Of COURSE you have found the perfect winning combination for Dom3.
But keep in mind that they have also, and theirs is different.
John Doe
> Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> contributed
>> I will just say that strategy games are not the only ones with
>> replay value; multiplayer gaming is the ultimate in
>> replayability, and you don't have to worry about AI because you
>> are playing against human intelligence, which is always
>> superior.
>
> I wouldnt lock on multiplayer as being the ultimate in
> replayability either. Ive had a number of games that were
> worthless 1 month after released due to a posting of a "killer
> strategy". Yet others I still play solo-play quite enjoyably due
> to many options, AI, and randomly generated maps. Human
> opponents does tend to be better than AI but it doesnt always
> improve game play IMHO.
It is not just the gameplay, multiplayer can be an awesome
feeling that lasts and lasts. But to each his own.
Gandalf Parker
$1583$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
True enough. To each their own.
Ive never been much for one-to-one conflict or competition in games or
sports. I prefer more cooperating sports. And in games also. The only
player-vs-player games I bother with have some sort of team or allies
component. So the MP itself isnt a big point for me.
Gandalf Parker