Alien and Starship Games Fail. Realism (or low tech) is prefered.
Alexander
Ever noticed how the popularity of "starship" type-explore-the-galaxy
sort of games are always overshadowed by more games whose theme is
based more in reality or at least humanity (if even in the medeival,
swords and sorcerers type sense)?
By that, I don't mean "realistic games" in the sense that realism is
requisite as much as the avoidance of UFO related themes and
characters. It's just that if you look at the history of games, the
success of spaceships, aliens, intergalactical warfare and the like
rarely equal themes that humans relate to better, such a realistic
historical events, social simulations, fantasy games based more on
dungeons and dragons versus luke skywalker.
Current examples of strategy games:
Civilization, In!... Alpha Centauri, Out! -- Alpha Cent. got good
reviews but not many really played it.
Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations... In
Command and Conquer and Red Alert series (sci fi, but didn't involve
little green men beaming down), great success.
Action Games:
Counterstrike, Rainbow Six Series, Battlefield series, whether its
Vietnam, BF2, or BF1942.. HalfLife, all resounding success..
F.E.A.R, Day of Defeat.. all doing well...
Doom3 out.. Quake4 out...
Most Quake fans refer back to the good old days of Quake 1, the game
that really earned the title... when things weren't quite so "beam me
up scotty" and were a little more "balls to the wooden wall"
The Battlezone multplayer games were an excellent example of how great
an online multiplayer action-strategy blastfest could be, but they
never gained recognition because a certain percent of the population
just aren't interested in piloting hovercraft, quite frankly.
RPGs:
World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Everquest, In..
StarWars related out
This is not to say that some level of Sci-Fi is not a good thing. I
think it is sometimes. F.E.A.R is a good example, its not realistic
at all, but at least it has us shooting human lookng characters
instead of R2D2.
Starcraft had a huge following, its just that it was not as big as
Warcraft, for example. If it were, we would see World of Starcraft
instead of World of Warcraft emerging first.
Like it or not, the success of Counterstrike has eclipsed any other
multiplayer game in history, and that is probably due to the fact it
is (somewhat) based on realistic modern weaponry. Its not "realistic"
in the sense you can nail someone several times and they can still run
without limping, but it is more realistic than any game that involves
aliens flying overhead in spaceships.
The Quake/Doom series is probably one of the best barometers of this
phenomenon. Castle Wolfenstein was the father of Doom, and the
original Doom was only moderately "spacey". It has gone downhill in
overall popularity in direct proportion to its increasing level of
depth into the space age.
Its just an observation, really and not meant to ignite a flame war
among alien and UFO lovers. If you love alien games then I say god
bless variety and more power to you.
But if I were a game company and wanted to watch industry trends, I've
been watching for 22 years and I have never seen UFO/Alien type games
equal games with more humanistic themes, however based in fantasy the
humanism might be.
Nostromo
00:13:16 -0500, Anno Domini:
>
>Ever noticed how the popularity of "starship" type-explore-the-galaxy
>sort of games are always overshadowed by more games whose theme is
>based more in reality or at least humanity (if even in the medeival,
>swords and sorcerers type sense)?
>
>By that, I don't mean "realistic games" in the sense that realism is
>requisite as much as the avoidance of UFO related themes and
>characters. It's just that if you look at the history of games, the
>success of spaceships, aliens, intergalactical warfare and the like
>rarely equal themes that humans relate to better, such a realistic
>historical events, social simulations, fantasy games based more on
>dungeons and dragons versus luke skywalker.
My theory is that people crave the simplicity of a time long past. Modern
life can be pretty hectic; some like to immerse themselves in complex rules
& interfaces (e.g. turn-based strategy games with manuals 3 inches thick),
whereas most others it seems prefer to have a framework like a medieval
setting because it's dead simple to start with (except for Everquest ;-p),
but grows in complexity as your char grows in power & ability. Add to that
stuff that we can't have in RL (i.e. magic or technology) & you have a
player's attention for a long time. I can't imagine most accountants wanting
to come home & play a game based on spreadsheets, though you never know ;-).
>Current examples of strategy games:
>Civilization, In!... Alpha Centauri, Out! -- Alpha Cent. got good
>reviews but not many really played it.
>Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations... In
>Command and Conquer and Red Alert series (sci fi, but didn't involve
>little green men beaming down), great success.
>
>Action Games:
>Counterstrike, Rainbow Six Series, Battlefield series, whether its
>Vietnam, BF2, or BF1942.. HalfLife, all resounding success..
>F.E.A.R, Day of Defeat.. all doing well...
Well, then there's the visceral adrenaline fix that these games
provide...not really thinking man's games though are they? More about
environment immersion & the fragfest thrill. I don't know that R6 was
anywhere near the success of a BF, HL2 or Q4 though...:-/
>Doom3 out.. Quake4 out...
>Most Quake fans refer back to the good old days of Quake 1, the game
>that really earned the title... when things weren't quite so "beam me
>up scotty" and were a little more "balls to the wooden wall"
>The Battlezone multplayer games were an excellent example of how great
>an online multiplayer action-strategy blastfest could be, but they
>never gained recognition because a certain percent of the population
>just aren't interested in piloting hovercraft, quite frankly.
>
>RPGs:
>World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Everquest, In..
> StarWars related out
That's a over-simplification - the genre had much less to do with SW:G's
downward slide than the fact they butchered the game rules & classes. Why
WoW got to 5 million subscribers is a mystery to me - it certainly does not
bode well for the future of mmorpgs, when games like GW w/o a monthly fee
only get to a million or two. I played EQ2 for 3 mths middle of this year -
how EQ/EQ2 ever rose to it's success attests to just how many PC gamers
there are out there with OCD. Really...nothing but grind.
>This is not to say that some level of Sci-Fi is not a good thing. I
>think it is sometimes. F.E.A.R is a good example, its not realistic
>at all, but at least it has us shooting human lookng characters
>instead of R2D2.
>
>Starcraft had a huge following, its just that it was not as big as
>Warcraft, for example. If it were, we would see World of Starcraft
>instead of World of Warcraft emerging first.
I dunno - there were plenty more SC players on BNet (not nearly as many as
D2 of course) than anything WC a couple years back. I think Blizzard just
went where the money was & at the time it seemed to be a fantasy mmorpg.
Their gamble paid off, more's the pity. Just what we needed a year ago -
another fantasy mmorpg lol!
>Like it or not, the success of Counterstrike has eclipsed any other
>multiplayer game in history, and that is probably due to the fact it
>is (somewhat) based on realistic modern weaponry. Its not "realistic"
>in the sense you can nail someone several times and they can still run
>without limping, but it is more realistic than any game that involves
>aliens flying overhead in spaceships.
Yes & no. I still think Wolf:ET was & is miles ahead of CS. There's no
accounting...
>The Quake/Doom series is probably one of the best barometers of this
>phenomenon. Castle Wolfenstein was the father of Doom, and the
>original Doom was only moderately "spacey". It has gone downhill in
>overall popularity in direct proportion to its increasing level of
>depth into the space age.
Or the fact that sequels rarely do as well as the originals, plus the
expectations increase every iteration perhaps...?
>Its just an observation, really and not meant to ignite a flame war
>among alien and UFO lovers. If you love alien games then I say god
>bless variety and more power to you.
>
>But if I were a game company and wanted to watch industry trends, I've
>been watching for 22 years and I have never seen UFO/Alien type games
>equal games with more humanistic themes, however based in fantasy the
>humanism might be.
And there you have it. Though let's not forget classics like Elite,
X-Wing/TIE Fighter, UFO:Enemy Unknown, Fallout, etc - alien/sci-fi has a
loyal & large following - just not as large as elves, dwarves & halfings
*boggle*
--
A killfile is a friend for life.
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Alexander
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>Thus spake Alexander <dontb...@meImthinking.com>, Thu, 29 Dec 2005
>00:13:16 -0500, Anno Domini:
Your feedback is appreciated, but of course I need to follow up :)
>>Ever noticed how the popularity of "starship" type-explore-the-galaxy
>>sort of games are always overshadowed by more games whose theme is
>>based more in reality or at least humanity (if even in the medeival,
>>swords and sorcerers type sense)?
>>
>>By that, I don't mean "realistic games" in the sense that realism is
>>requisite as much as the avoidance of UFO related themes and
>>characters. It's just that if you look at the history of games, the
>>success of spaceships, aliens, intergalactical warfare and the like
>>rarely equal themes that humans relate to better, such a realistic
>>historical events, social simulations, fantasy games based more on
>>dungeons and dragons versus luke skywalker.
>
>My theory is that people crave the simplicity of a time long past.
Or that most people crave simplicity in games. Complexity is usually
unpalatable by children, and intolerable by adults. But I'm not sure
it is simply a matter of complex vs. simple. Doom3/Quake4 are
pathetically simple, complicated only by wonkey interfaces (Doom3) and
lots of star spangled corridors (Quake4).
>Modern
>life can be pretty hectic; some like to immerse themselves in complex rules
>& interfaces (e.g. turn-based strategy games with manuals 3 inches thick),
>whereas most others it seems prefer to have a framework like a medieval
>setting because it's dead simple to start with (except for Everquest ;-p),
I would disagree with this... Most of the medieval RPGs are just as
complex, if not more so than the "I believe in Aliens" variety.
>but grows in complexity as your char grows in power & ability. Add to that
>stuff that we can't have in RL (i.e. magic or technology) & you have a
>player's attention for a long time. I can't imagine most accountants wanting
>to come home & play a game based on spreadsheets, though you never know ;-).
Now you're thinking like me, I write several thousand lines of code
per week, so complex or not, something that is minutely originated in
modern or past humanity is somehow more intriguing to me than somethng
based on one persons vision of what might be in the future. I would
say "maybe its just me", but as my post indicates this does not appear
to be the case.
>>Current examples of strategy games:
>>Civilization, In!... Alpha Centauri, Out! -- Alpha Cent. got good
>>reviews but not many really played it.
>>Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations... In
>>Command and Conquer and Red Alert series (sci fi, but didn't involve
>>little green men beaming down), great success.
>>
>>Action Games:
>>Counterstrike, Rainbow Six Series, Battlefield series, whether its
>>Vietnam, BF2, or BF1942.. HalfLife, all resounding success..
>>F.E.A.R, Day of Defeat.. all doing well...
>
>Well, then there's the visceral adrenaline fix that these games
>provide...not really thinking man's games though are they? More about
>environment immersion & the fragfest thrill. I don't know that R6 was
>anywhere near the success of a BF, HL2 or Q4 though...:-/
In the multiplayer world, I would say R6 was infinitely more
successful than Q4 or HL2 deathmatch. When most people speak of HL2,
they are also speaking of Counterstrike:Source, which Valve has said
really sold the game.
>>Doom3 out.. Quake4 out...
>>Most Quake fans refer back to the good old days of Quake 1, the game
>>that really earned the title... when things weren't quite so "beam me
>>up scotty" and were a little more "balls to the wooden wall"
>>The Battlezone multplayer games were an excellent example of how great
>>an online multiplayer action-strategy blastfest could be, but they
>>never gained recognition because a certain percent of the population
>>just aren't interested in piloting hovercraft, quite frankly.
>>
>>RPGs:
>>World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Everquest, In..
>> StarWars related out
>
>That's a over-simplification - the genre had much less to do with SW:G's
>downward slide than the fact they butchered the game rules & classes. Why
>WoW got to 5 million subscribers is a mystery to me
Had Blizzard decided to do a World of Starcraft at the same time as
World of Warcraft, we would have had a better benchmark for
comparison, but they didn't. I would submit they based their decision
on overall popularity of the Warcraft series. Even the original
Warcraft, which was playable over a dialup modem, was an instant
success and absolutely defined the RTS genre. How many were around
back then to remember the phenomenon, I'm not sure.
>>This is not to say that some level of Sci-Fi is not a good thing. I
>>think it is sometimes. F.E.A.R is a good example, its not realistic
>>at all, but at least it has us shooting human lookng characters
>>instead of R2D2.
>>
>>Starcraft had a huge following, its just that it was not as big as
>>Warcraft, for example. If it were, we would see World of Starcraft
>>instead of World of Warcraft emerging first.
>
>I dunno - there were plenty more SC players on BNet (not nearly as many as
>D2 of course) than anything WC a couple years back.
Not from the accounting data I've seen. Perhaps you're referrng to
the popularity of SC at a given point in time versus WC? It seems to
me SC was really the same game as WC, except with spaceships and
aliens.
>I think Blizzard just
>went where the money was
Yes, exactly what I'm getting at.. They based their design decisions
on potential revenue, which was a prediction based on reflection of
past game sales.
>>Like it or not, the success of Counterstrike has eclipsed any other
>>multiplayer game in history, and that is probably due to the fact it
>>is (somewhat) based on realistic modern weaponry. Its not "realistic"
>>in the sense you can nail someone several times and they can still run
>>without limping, but it is more realistic than any game that involves
>>aliens flying overhead in spaceships.
>
>Yes & no. I still think Wolf:ET was & is miles ahead of CS. There's no
>accounting...
You think so. If you think so, you're right... in your case.... But
CS has always had a staggering number of players. And, bottom line,
even Wolf:ET (being a WWII game) is stll supporting my argument...
World War II games (Wolf anything, Call of Duty, Day of Defeat etc)
seem to always win out over "blow up the space ship" games.
>>The Quake/Doom series is probably one of the best barometers of this
>>phenomenon. Castle Wolfenstein was the father of Doom, and the
>>original Doom was only moderately "spacey". It has gone downhill in
>>overall popularity in direct proportion to its increasing level of
>>depth into the space age.
>
>Or the fact that sequels rarely do as well as the originals, plus the
>expectations increase every iteration perhaps...?
Perhaps, but the fact remains that sequels of the games I've mentioned
have done better than the sequels of their space age equivilents,
assuming we are staying on topic here.
>
>>Its just an observation, really and not meant to ignite a flame war
>>among alien and UFO lovers. If you love alien games then I say god
>>bless variety and more power to you.
>>
>>But if I were a game company and wanted to watch industry trends, I've
>>been watching for 22 years and I have never seen UFO/Alien type games
>>equal games with more humanistic themes, however based in fantasy the
>>humanism might be.
>
>And there you have it. Though let's not forget classics like Elite,
>X-Wing/TIE Fighter, UFO:Enemy Unknown, Fallout, etc - alien/sci-fi has a
>loyal & large following - just not as large as elves, dwarves & halfings
>*boggle*
The first two you mentioned had quite a following. The third,
Fallout, was a sci-fi (post nuclear war) Mad Max type game, but was
not quite about storm troopers, darth vader, star trek space ship
laser batttles like the examples I was attemptng to provide. And if I
recall, Balders Gate (by the same group) was far more successful than
Fallout, despite being apparently the same game engine built on a
different genre.
Just to be clear... I am not knocking sci-fi games, I happen to love
the theme around post nuclear horrors and mad-max type scenarios. I
am only pointing out that over the decades, the public seems to want
games they relate with better than little green men and flying
saucers.
Nostromo
<snip>
>>That's a over-simplification - the genre had much less to do with SW:G's
>>downward slide than the fact they butchered the game rules & classes. Why
>>WoW got to 5 million subscribers is a mystery to me
>
>Had Blizzard decided to do a World of Starcraft at the same time as
>World of Warcraft, we would have had a better benchmark for
>comparison, but they didn't. I would submit they based their decision
>on overall popularity of the Warcraft series. Even the original
>Warcraft, which was playable over a dialup modem, was an instant
>success and absolutely defined the RTS genre. How many were around
>back then to remember the phenomenon, I'm not sure.
It defined the *online* RTS genre perhaps, even though multiplay was well
cemented long before that with Total Annihilation & the genre spawned by
Dune 2 all those years ago really.
>>>This is not to say that some level of Sci-Fi is not a good thing. I
>>>think it is sometimes. F.E.A.R is a good example, its not realistic
>>>at all, but at least it has us shooting human lookng characters
>>>instead of R2D2.
>>>
>>>Starcraft had a huge following, its just that it was not as big as
>>>Warcraft, for example. If it were, we would see World of Starcraft
>>>instead of World of Warcraft emerging first.
>>
>>I dunno - there were plenty more SC players on BNet (not nearly as many as
>>D2 of course) than anything WC a couple years back.
>
>Not from the accounting data I've seen. Perhaps you're referrng to
>the popularity of SC at a given point in time versus WC? It seems to
>me SC was really the same game as WC, except with spaceships and
>aliens.
Kinda...but the 3 races in SC were much more diverse imo than the WC ones. I
only ever saw D2 or SC avatars in public chat on BNet over a 3 yr period -
hardly ever WC.
>>I think Blizzard just
>>went where the money was
>
>Yes, exactly what I'm getting at.. They based their design decisions
>on potential revenue, which was a prediction based on reflection of
>past game sales.
Partially. I think a mmrorpg set in the SC universe would have been much
more challenging for starters, & apart from AO's crash there wasn't much
else to compare a sci-fi mmorpg to...whereas fantasy-based mmorpgs were
rampant already. So, past game sales of *others* perhaps.
>>>Like it or not, the success of Counterstrike has eclipsed any other
>>>multiplayer game in history, and that is probably due to the fact it
>>>is (somewhat) based on realistic modern weaponry. Its not "realistic"
>>>in the sense you can nail someone several times and they can still run
>>>without limping, but it is more realistic than any game that involves
>>>aliens flying overhead in spaceships.
>>
>>Yes & no. I still think Wolf:ET was & is miles ahead of CS. There's no
>>accounting...
>
>You think so. If you think so, you're right... in your case.... But
>CS has always had a staggering number of players. And, bottom line,
>even Wolf:ET (being a WWII game) is stll supporting my argument...
>World War II games (Wolf anything, Call of Duty, Day of Defeat etc)
>seem to always win out over "blow up the space ship" games.
Well, I think it probably has something to do with that simplicity argument
I started. Sci-fi is by its nature complex & thought-provoking. Most ppl
don't want that to get in the way of a good fragfest. In a fantasy setting
the entire world & environment is typically country/medieval basic, which
means you can devote all your attention to the nuts & bolts - less
multi-tasking, which 20+ yrs of IT has shown me most ppl do very badly to be
honest.
>>>The Quake/Doom series is probably one of the best barometers of this
>>>phenomenon. Castle Wolfenstein was the father of Doom, and the
>>>original Doom was only moderately "spacey". It has gone downhill in
>>>overall popularity in direct proportion to its increasing level of
>>>depth into the space age.
>>
>>Or the fact that sequels rarely do as well as the originals, plus the
>>expectations increase every iteration perhaps...?
>
>Perhaps, but the fact remains that sequels of the games I've mentioned
>have done better than the sequels of their space age equivilents,
>assuming we are staying on topic here.
Well, yes. I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to find the ultimate
rationale or attraction to fantasy over sci-fi.
>>>Its just an observation, really and not meant to ignite a flame war
>>>among alien and UFO lovers. If you love alien games then I say god
>>>bless variety and more power to you.
>>>
>>>But if I were a game company and wanted to watch industry trends, I've
>>>been watching for 22 years and I have never seen UFO/Alien type games
>>>equal games with more humanistic themes, however based in fantasy the
>>>humanism might be.
>>
>>And there you have it. Though let's not forget classics like Elite,
>>X-Wing/TIE Fighter, UFO:Enemy Unknown, Fallout, etc - alien/sci-fi has a
>>loyal & large following - just not as large as elves, dwarves & halfings
>>*boggle*
>
>The first two you mentioned had quite a following. The third,
>Fallout, was a sci-fi (post nuclear war) Mad Max type game, but was
>not quite about storm troopers, darth vader, star trek space ship
>laser batttles like the examples I was attemptng to provide. And if I
>recall, Balders Gate (by the same group) was far more successful than
>Fallout, despite being apparently the same game engine built on a
>different genre.
Bioware vs Black Isle I believe - same publisher though (Interplay?). Black
Isle also did Torment, hugely praised but poorly sold, so make of that what
you will ;).
>Just to be clear... I am not knocking sci-fi games, I happen to love
>the theme around post nuclear horrors and mad-max type scenarios. I
>am only pointing out that over the decades, the public seems to want
>games they relate with better than little green men and flying
>saucers.
As I said above, when you go interactive (unlike vacantly staring at
something like X-Files which doesn't have to make any sense), the brain
starts to work overtime if everything (the setting, environment, characters,
gadgets, actions, etc) are out of the ordinary. Same reason that abstract
puzzle games aren't that huge I'd say.
Alexander
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>Thus spake Alexander <dontb...@meImthinking.com>, Thu, 29 Dec 2005
>04:59:07 -0500, Anno Domini:
>
><snip>
>
>>>That's a over-simplification - the genre had much less to do with SW:G's
>>>downward slide than the fact they butchered the game rules & classes. Why
>>>WoW got to 5 million subscribers is a mystery to me
>>
>>Had Blizzard decided to do a World of Starcraft at the same time as
>>World of Warcraft, we would have had a better benchmark for
>>comparison, but they didn't. I would submit they based their decision
>>on overall popularity of the Warcraft series. Even the original
>>Warcraft, which was playable over a dialup modem, was an instant
>>success and absolutely defined the RTS genre. How many were around
>>back then to remember the phenomenon, I'm not sure.
>
>It defined the *online* RTS genre perhaps, even though multiplay was well
>cemented long before that with Total Annihilation & the genre spawned by
>Dune 2 all those years ago really.
I had forgotten about Dune 2, but I'm confused what you're saying
about Total Annihilation. The original Warcraft came out in 1992 or
93, while TA was a late 90's game. The original C&C and Red Alert
games were before TA. And even still, Dune 2, Red Alert, etc are more
or less "futuristic warfare" games that deal with real human beings
rather than forcing the player to believe in little green men and
UFOs. Please keep in mind my original post was not to slam anything
sci-fi related, and it seems that there may be confusion that I was
directly comparing fantasy to space age games.. I really wasn't. Its
just that if you look at trends over the gaming decades, games that
give a human being something he can relate to tend to win out.
Even in the days of old, as popular as Galaga and Defender were, they
did not equal the success of PacMan, Frogger, Donkey Kong, etc. There
is just something about the whole interplanetary space age theme that
seems to limit a games potential audience.
Craig Richardson
<dontb...@meImthinking.com> wrote:
> It's just that if you look at the history of games, the
>success of spaceships, aliens, intergalactical warfare and the like
>rarely equal themes that humans relate to better, such a realistic
>historical events, social simulations, fantasy games based more on
>dungeons and dragons versus luke skywalker.
If you google rec.arts.sf.written, you'll find an endless debate on
fantasy vs. science fiction, trying to figure out just why the former
is more popular, seemingly taking over the speculative fiction genre.
In short, it's not just games... If you compare the popularity of
fantasy, science fiction, historical fiction, "men's adventure", and
technothrillers, it's obvious which brings up the rear - it's sci-fi.
As for why - I think it's because far-future SF is hard to get right.
By this I mean being both readily comprehensible and passing the
giggle test.
>Current examples of strategy games:
Not the newsgroup for this, but if you took it to .strategic, you'd
need to do a /lot/ more than just an assertion. The thing is, non-RTS
strategy gaming is a niche, and is a lot friendlier to science
fictional themes, which are also a niche.
>Civilization, In!... Alpha Centauri, Out! -- Alpha Cent. got good
>reviews but not many really played it.
>Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations... In
>Command and Conquer and Red Alert series (sci fi, but didn't involve
>little green men beaming down), great success.
Master of Orion series? Emperor of the Fading Suns? Galactic
Civilizations? Stars? VGA Planets? Space Empires? UFO/XCOM?
>Action Games:
>Counterstrike, Rainbow Six Series, Battlefield series, whether its
>Vietnam, BF2, or BF1942.. HalfLife, all resounding success..
>F.E.A.R, Day of Defeat.. all doing well...
>Doom3 out.. Quake4 out...
Serious Sam? Alien vs. Predator?
>RPGs:
>World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Everquest, In..
> StarWars related out
Even in the pen-and-pencil world, science fiction RPGs are relatively
rare, and less successful than their fantasy and horror counterparts.
And my suspicion is that even the relatively successful ones (e.g.
Traveller) aren't bringing new RPGers into science-fiction gaming, but
providing another RPG outlet for people who already like it.
[snip]
>The Quake/Doom series is probably one of the best barometers of this
>phenomenon. Castle Wolfenstein was the father of Doom, and the
>original Doom was only moderately "spacey". It has gone downhill in
>overall popularity in direct proportion to its increasing level of
>depth into the space age.
This might be confusing correlation with causation. To me, the Doom
franchise has gone downhill because it's abandoning what made it
/Doom/ - visceral action, adrenaline-pumping score, and a high body
count - and trying to become a futuristic Half-Life. Same with Hexen
- the early Id games lost something in the transition from sprites to
polygons. Something we didn't get back until Serious Sam came out.
And I liked Quake 2, and would be playing Quake 4 if they hadn't
removed the ability to play the single-player storyline in coop
multiplayer...
>Its just an observation, really and not meant to ignite a flame war
>among alien and UFO lovers. If you love alien games then I say god
>bless variety and more power to you.
>
>But if I were a game company and wanted to watch industry trends, I've
>been watching for 22 years and I have never seen UFO/Alien type games
>equal games with more humanistic themes, however based in fantasy the
>humanism might be.
Maybe you shouldn't visit rec.arts.sf.written, then. This (science
fiction vs. humanism) is a false dichotomy, and indicates a shallow
understanding of the subject matter.
Your broader point - that games with science-fictional themes are less
popular in terms of sales than comparable games with other types of
theme - is, particularly within the action genre, mostly valid. But.
I think it's just as arguable that the reason for this failure is
technical, rather than thematic. From Starflight and Elite through
Doom to Serious Sam and Halo, games with explicit science-fictional
themes have been able to carve out a successful place for themselves -
if they have a solid vision and the technical prowess to realize it.
I see no reason to assume that this won't be true in the future.
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (crichar...@worldnet.att.net)
"Then I heard the whirring of the motorized snowmen, sound[ing] like the
death rattle of very small robot lizards, and I left the seasonal aisle"
-- James Lileks, "The Bleat", 2005/10/10
Nostromo
TA was the first really popular online (internet) RTS IIRC - that's all I
was saying.
>Even in the days of old, as popular as Galaga and Defender were, they
>did not equal the success of PacMan, Frogger, Donkey Kong, etc. There
>is just something about the whole interplanetary space age theme that
>seems to limit a games potential audience.
You obviously weren't there when Space Invaders consoles first hit the
arcades & shops (granted, there wasn't much competition :).
Johnny Bravo
>player's attention for a long time. I can't imagine most accountants wanting
>to come home & play a game based on spreadsheets, though you never know ;-).
And we've had them! Detroit and Airbucks come readily to mind. :)
Alexander
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
Then you're a late comer, because Warcraft I over TEN and Kali
(provided IPX support over TCP) dwarfed the popularity of TA, which
was a great game but had relatively high system demands at the time.
The RedAlert series, which was available through Bilizzard's servers,
was out before TA and far more popular.
>>Even in the days of old, as popular as Galaga and Defender were, they
>>did not equal the success of PacMan, Frogger, Donkey Kong, etc. There
>>is just something about the whole interplanetary space age theme that
>>seems to limit a games potential audience.
>
>You obviously weren't there when Space Invaders consoles first hit the
>arcades & shops (granted, there wasn't much competition :).
Yes I was, and they were popular, but no more so than pong. New.
Novelty.
Anyhoo... my original point is not to reduce the number of space
related games being written or insult those who enjoy them. I racked
up enough hours on WingCommander in 1990 to have earned my place in
the spacenerds hall of fame. I am just trying to point out a very
true observation that space games, historically, have attracted less
buyers than games with a more realistic slant. Swords win out over
light sabers when it comes to pure sales numbers. This does not in
anyway comment on the passion of those who enjoy games with little
green men or try to comment on how many hours are spent playng these
games. I personally know someone who has spent more time on Eve
Online than I have spent on non-space related games in my entire life.
But there is something to be said for the size of the cumulative
audience for a genre, and if I were in the business of makng games for
profit, I would be very interested in the (verifiable) observations I
have presented here in this thread.
Alexander
<crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:13:16 -0500, Alexander
><dontb...@meImthinking.com> wrote:
>
>> It's just that if you look at the history of games, the
>>success of spaceships, aliens, intergalactical warfare and the like
>>rarely equal themes that humans relate to better, such a realistic
>>historical events, social simulations, fantasy games based more on
>>dungeons and dragons versus luke skywalker.
>
>If you google rec.arts.sf.written, you'll find an endless debate on
>fantasy vs. science fiction
I'm going to completely forego your invitation to compete in some sort
of sci-fi versus fantasy war, because not only is your post completely
irrelevant to my point here (which is really more like realism versus
sci-fi plus fantasy), but your assertion that my understanding of the
subject matter is shallow is highly indicative of either a reading
comprehension issue, or at least a failure to fully assimilate the
material, on your part.
I never ignited a "sci-fi versus humanism" debate as you apparently
thought. Humanism is a broad term that usually means things far
outside the scope of this discussion.
If you care to prove you've been paying attention at all to what I'm
saying, I may engage you in discussion again. Otherwise I will stick
to other, more qualified follow ups to my thread. I encourage you to
read my original post and read it well.
I will say it again..... THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCI-FI VERSUS FANTASY.
Alexander
>true observation that space games, historically, have attracted less
>buyers than games with a more realistic slant. Swords win out over
>light sabers when it comes to pure sales numbers.
As I read my own writing, I realize this statement sounds like I got a
bit distracted myself.. Swords vs. Lightsabers does indeed like I am
arguing fantasy vs. sci fi...
I guess, in essence what I'm saying is
Light sabers < Swords < rocket launchers < AK47s
when it comes to overall game popularity. Immersion is everything and
higher levels of realism lead to higher levels of immersion.
Nostromo
02:28:32 -0500, Anno Domini:
Oh I'm not a latecomer, trust me (been PC gaming since the 80s), but it
might be a regional thing here in Aus. I just don't recall as much buzz over
WC or RA as there was over TA. And I was never on TEN or Kali - I'd actually
call them interim, bastard networks - they weren't really true internet
multiplayer games w/o a helluva lot of fiddling (or a beastly system as you
say).
>>>Even in the days of old, as popular as Galaga and Defender were, they
>>>did not equal the success of PacMan, Frogger, Donkey Kong, etc. There
>>>is just something about the whole interplanetary space age theme that
>>>seems to limit a games potential audience.
>>
>>You obviously weren't there when Space Invaders consoles first hit the
>>arcades & shops (granted, there wasn't much competition :).
>
>Yes I was, and they were popular, but no more so than pong. New.
>Novelty.
>
>Anyhoo... my original point is not to reduce the number of space
>related games being written or insult those who enjoy them. I racked
If we go a little further back, I recall SpaceQuest being almost as popular
as the Kings & Police Quest series, but that might just be me ;).
>up enough hours on WingCommander in 1990 to have earned my place in
>the spacenerds hall of fame. I am just trying to point out a very
>true observation that space games, historically, have attracted less
>buyers than games with a more realistic slant. Swords win out over
>light sabers when it comes to pure sales numbers. This does not in
>anyway comment on the passion of those who enjoy games with little
>green men or try to comment on how many hours are spent playng these
>games. I personally know someone who has spent more time on Eve
>Online than I have spent on non-space related games in my entire life.
>But there is something to be said for the size of the cumulative
>audience for a genre, and if I were in the business of makng games for
>profit, I would be very interested in the (verifiable) observations I
>have presented here in this thread.
It would be interesting to see some sales figures over the years & even poll
results over a large audience (not here & more to find out what it is
players prefer in sci-fi over fantasy & vice-versa). So far we've only
really speculated *why* it is the case.
Nostromo
Well it's sci-fi (or aliens/tech/space themes) vs the rest. And as lot of
*the rest* in gaming is fantasy, which ppl seem to prefer to lean towards. I
still haven't seen any concrete rationale as to why though - my own
arguments towards 'simplicity' or 'immersion' are mere speculation.
Alexander
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
Ok, well you've answered a lot of my questions and cleared up a great
deal of confusion by revealing your geography. Admittedly, trends on
different continents may be completely different, and maybe I should
apologize for describing something that might be exclusive to North
America... My next thought would be, what percentage of a game
companies revenue comes from North America? If its relatively
insignificant, then perhaps my original moot is completely moot -- if
so I wll gladly concede. But living in the USA my entire life, I am
perhaps only subjected to sales figures or popularity statstics I see
in this country. And, all of this will explain my confusion on the
follwing:
>If we go a little further back, I recall SpaceQuest being almost as popular
>as the Kings & Police Quest series, but that might just be me ;).
The confusion I'm speaking about is that I have never even heard of
SpaceQuest. Is that by Sierra? If so, just a bit of background on
the USA market. Kings Quest first came out in the early 80s for the
IBM PC Jr (I dont remember if it ran properly on regular IBM PCs).. It
was revolutionary in the sense that it let you move your character
up,down,left,right...freely around the screen as opposed to linear
left/right movement, as something like DonkeyKong or PacMan would
allow. It was truly the first offering by Sierra in that genre and
far away the most popular. I played a couple of the Kings quest games
and the Police quest games and could not seem to "get it"... but I can
tell you that in North America, Kings Quest, Police Quest and even
Leisure Suit Larry overshadowed Space Quest in a big way... I say that
mostly because I never remember hearing anything about Space Quest.
>It would be interesting to see some sales figures over the years & even poll
>results over a large audience (not here & more to find out what it is
>players prefer in sci-fi over fantasy & vice-versa). So far we've only
>really speculated *why* it is the case.
True enough that it is is speculation, and as I've stated, I am going
to sleep tonight feeling somewhat more aware of geographical
differences. But I can tell you (once again, localized to my
geographic zone) that sales figures in the US will back up everything
I've asserted thus far. I cannot speak at all about AUS, UK, etc.
Mean_Chlorine
evidence presented in this thread apart from personal opinion and
hearsay. Hell, even the genres aren't defined. This is pure fluff.
Alexander
Who the hell are you to try to presume what the topic of *MY* thread
the one that *I* created, *I* chose the subject line for, which
revolved purely around a subject of *my* choosing?
The person who initiates a thread decides what that thread is about.
I never intended to define genres or "present evidence" because my
intention with the thread was not to take this to a court trial in
front of a fucking jury.
I specifically did not define genres because the humanistic element
that I spoke of does not fall into a specific genre... it is present
in some "save the galaxy" type games as well, so I believe there is no
way anyone could accurately divvy up the games that have the elements
I've described into specific categories without going into endless,
pointless debates on whether game A fell into category X or category
Y.
I gave plenty of examples of games, the only evidence I need to
present is the fact that the games I mentioned *have* largely been
better sellers in the USA. If you really want sales data about
specific games and number of copies sold, you may have to have break
into the freaking game companies yourself and steal the information,
because not all of this information is publically available, and even
if it was I'm not going to become your part-time research monkey..
Research it yourself.
Why do people always have to turn every thread into some sort of
Nintendo vs Sega debate thats up for a decision by the supreme court?
I was not even trying to imply one type of game was better than the
other, only that the presence of certain elements in games tends to
make them appeal to a wider audience and thus sell more copies.
So please, for all the trekkies and 35 year olds that still have an
entire room in their house covered in Star Wars action figures who
might have felt I was threatening to take away their beloved space
games, please relax knowing that there will always be plenty of
planets for you to save and space ships for you to pilot, regardless
of what happens in this thread. Nobody is taking your UFO games away.
Shawk
"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_no...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:63bar11u0o4cunq2k...@4ax.com...
>I can't believe you guys are actually arguing this. There is ZERO
> evidence presented in this thread apart from personal opinion and
> hearsay. Hell, even the genres aren't defined. This is pure fluff.
>
>
Aah, pure fluff, the stuff of newsgroups....
:-)
Mean_Chlorine
>>I can't believe you guys are actually arguing this. There is ZERO
>> evidence presented in this thread apart from personal opinion and
>> hearsay. Hell, even the genres aren't defined. This is pure fluff.
>
>Aah, pure fluff, the stuff of newsgroups....
>
>:-)
Yeah, but is it hard or soft fluff? Space fluffery? Sword & fluffery?
Maybe even high fluff?
Inquiring minds want to... no, actually they simply don't care. I'll
just tell Alex to fuck off again instead. Sometimes I just can't be
arsed.
Mean_Chlorine
>>I can't believe you guys are actually arguing this. There is ZERO
>>evidence presented in this thread apart from personal opinion and
>>hearsay. Hell, even the genres aren't defined. This is pure fluff.
>
>
>Who the hell are you to try to presume what the topic of *MY* thread
>the one that *I* created, *I* chose the subject line for, which
>revolved purely around a subject of *my* choosing?
Yeah, who am I to demand sense instead of vague rambling. Fuck off.
>The person who initiates a thread decides what that thread is about.
Yeah, he who vaguely rambles defines what the subject is while the
others play catch-up. Fuck off.
>I never intended to define genres or "present evidence" because my
>intention with the thread was not to take this to a court trial in
>front of a fucking jury.
Yeah, you never intended this to be anything but vague rambling. Fuck
off.
>I specifically did not define genres because the humanistic element
>that I spoke of does not fall into a specific genre...
Humanistic element = ? Teh vague rambling fuck off.
>it is present
>in some "save the galaxy" type games as well
Examples. Fuck off.
>, so I believe there is no
>way anyone could accurately divvy up the games that have the elements
>I've described into specific categories without going into endless,
>pointless debates on whether game A fell into category X or category
>Y.
Your argument is this: You feel that undefined games with an undefined
feel of undefined lowtechness is more undefinedly successful than
undefined games with an undefined sense of hightechness. In other
words, this thread is INTENTIONALLY pointless fluff. You have no proof
that your assertion is true, and you have not defined the subject
sufficiently for anyone to actually evaluate your point or even
understand wth it is.
So: Fuck off.
>I gave plenty of examples of games, the only evidence I need to
>present is the fact that the games I mentioned *have* largely been
>better sellers in the USA.
Than KOTOR and Halo. No, wait, they have that low-tech humanistic
feel, right? Fuck off.
>If you really want sales data about
>specific games and number of copies sold, you may have to have break
>into the freaking game companies yourself and steal the information,
Yeah, or even google for it. Fuck off.
>because not all of this information is publically available, and even
>if it was I'm not going to become your part-time research monkey..
>Research it yourself.
Yeah, who am I to ask you to support your claims or even define what
the hell you're rambling about sufficiently well that anyone outside
your head can understand you. Fuck off.
>Why do people always have to turn every thread into some sort of
>Nintendo vs Sega debate thats up for a decision by the supreme court?
Yeah, *that's* what I'm talking about - consoles! _FUCK OFF!_
>I was not even trying to imply one type of game was better than the
>other, only that the presence of certain elements in games tends to
>make them appeal to a wider audience and thus sell more copies.
Examples. Fuck off.
>So please, for all the trekkies and 35 year olds that still have an
>entire room in their house covered in Star Wars action figures who
>might have felt I was threatening to take away their beloved space
>games, please relax knowing that there will always be plenty of
>planets for you to save and space ships for you to pilot, regardless
>of what happens in this thread. Nobody is taking your UFO games away.
Moron. Fuck off.
Craig Richardson
And Stars! (although maybe it just seems that way). A number of
sports-management sims also have a very spreadsheet-like feel.
Alexander
Yes, saying "fuck off" over and over in your message sure provided
more insightful content than my "useless fluff". Also provided a
reasonable indication of your maturity. No go play your starwars
games you brown-toothed british nancy, before I bitch slap your ass.
Craig Richardson
<dontbo...@imthinking.com> wrote:
Note: I'm going to try to take the level of rancor down a notch. I
misunderstood Alexander's main point, due to an unfortunate choice of
terms which he clarified elsethread. Alexander thus misunderstood my
reply, and took me to task for a comment which was vaguely insulting.
This reply is thus more heated than should be justified, so I'm going
to stick to clarification rather than matching flame for flame.
>On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:44:22 -0800, Craig Richardson
><crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:13:16 -0500, Alexander
>><dontb...@meImthinking.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's just that if you look at the history of games, the
>>>success of spaceships, aliens, intergalactical warfare and the like
>>>rarely equal themes that humans relate to better, such a realistic
>>>historical events, social simulations, fantasy games based more on
>>>dungeons and dragons versus luke skywalker.
>>
>>If you google rec.arts.sf.written, you'll find an endless debate on
>>fantasy vs. science fiction
>
>I'm going to completely forego your invitation to compete in some sort
>of sci-fi versus fantasy war,
Sorry it seemed that way - it really wasn't. My actual point was that
science fiction is not only less popular as a gaming genre, but as a
genre /period/. This is not irrelevant, but crucially important to
understanding the issue. If science fiction per se does not strike a
chord with a mass audience, science fiction games aren't going to,
either. That was why I dragged in the r.a.sf.w. discussion - it's
gone on so long because it's clear that science fiction per se clearly
is getting less popular with time, and even industry insiders can't
figure out why. This naturally extends to the science fiction gaming
industry.
>because not only is your post completely
>irrelevant to my point here (which is really more like realism versus
>sci-fi plus fantasy),
This is the core misunderstanding. The term "humanism" brings in a
lot of baggage that is better left outside this discussion. On a
continuum, fantasy is much more "realistic" than science fiction, as
it shares quite a bit with plain history, and is thus much closer to
ordinary experience than science fiction is. So I was considering
fantasy to be a close cousin of technothrillers/historical/etc. for
purposes of genre. You might want to make a more rigid distinction,
but IMO the proper breakdown is either "reality vs. fantasy vs. SF" or
"reality+fantasy" vs. SF. This is why I seem to keep harping on SF.
> but your assertion that my understanding of the
>subject matter is shallow is highly indicative of either a reading
>comprehension issue, or at least a failure to fully assimilate the
>material, on your part.
It was somewhat insulting, and I realized it at the time. I shouldn't
have let it go. My bad.
>I never ignited a "sci-fi versus humanism" debate as you apparently
>thought. Humanism is a broad term that usually means things far
>outside the scope of this discussion.
Which is exactly what I was saying - thus the comment of "shallow".
If you were addressing "realism", rather than "humanism", your level
of detail is quite appropriate, and I retract any implied insult.
>If you care to prove you've been paying attention at all to what I'm
>saying, I may engage you in discussion again.
I am attempting to keep the level of discourse high. I think if we
can untrack the thread from flaming back to discussion that we both
might learn something from the other.
> Otherwise I will stick
>to other, more qualified follow ups to my thread. I encourage you to
>read my original post and read it well.
It certainly makes a difference that "realism" is what was intended.
Do you have any comments on the middle part of my post, which was
specifically about SF in gaming?
>I will say it again..... THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCI-FI VERSUS FANTASY.
I'm not so sure. I think that is yet to be proven. Science fiction
and everyday realism are at two ends of the spectrum, but where
fantasy goes on it is still debatable, I think. There is at least an
argument that fantasy is closer to "real" than it is to science
fiction - and its placement is clearly germane to the discussion.
--Craig
(See, no flames!)
Craig Richardson
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>Thus spake Alexander <dontbo...@imthinking.com>, Fri, 30 Dec 2005
>02:36:16 -0500, Anno Domini:
>>I will say it again..... THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCI-FI VERSUS FANTASY.
>
>Well it's sci-fi (or aliens/tech/space themes) vs the rest. And as lot of
>*the rest* in gaming is fantasy, which ppl seem to prefer to lean towards. I
>still haven't seen any concrete rationale as to why though - my own
>arguments towards 'simplicity' or 'immersion' are mere speculation.
Also, people can extrapolate from their everyday experience much more
to fantasy than to science fiction. It's more "comfortable". Hell,
some classic works of "fantasy" have no fantastic element at all, and
might well be pure historical fiction.
Nostromo
I know LL was fairly popular with the early Beavis & Butthead cheap
titillation crowd down under as well. But SQ spawned *7* sequels (including
the original), which is almost as many as KQ & more than PQ I believe, so
that's gotta tell you something.
>>It would be interesting to see some sales figures over the years & even poll
>>results over a large audience (not here & more to find out what it is
>>players prefer in sci-fi over fantasy & vice-versa). So far we've only
>>really speculated *why* it is the case.
>
>True enough that it is is speculation, and as I've stated, I am going
>to sleep tonight feeling somewhat more aware of geographical
>differences. But I can tell you (once again, localized to my
>geographic zone) that sales figures in the US will back up everything
>I've asserted thus far. I cannot speak at all about AUS, UK, etc.
And then there's Asia which actually outsells a lot of US games with its
locally developed stuff (I think China still holds the record with
Lineage1/2 for online games?). Same for box office (like India) - you just
don't hear about it in yankee-land because you're the center of the Universe
& all that ;-p
Nostromo
2005 14:09:58 -0800, Anno Domini:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:23:20 GMT, Johnny Bravo
><baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:26:30 +1100, Nostromo <nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>player's attention for a long time. I can't imagine most accountants wanting
>>>to come home & play a game based on spreadsheets, though you never know ;-).
>>
>> And we've had them! Detroit and Airbucks come readily to mind. :)
>
>And Stars! (although maybe it just seems that way). A number of
>sports-management sims also have a very spreadsheet-like feel.
Ahhh, Stars!, the game that killed more hours for me than any other strategy
title perhaps. Only MOM comes close I think. Anyone know what happened to
the bloody sequel in the end? It's been years in the coming...
Mean_Chlorine
>Come on girls : handbags away.
Negative on that. I've finally found a handbag which fits two bricks
and has metal-reinforced edges.
>FWIW, I thought your discussion was interesting and far from fluffy,
>but all to their own : I guess you caught MC on a real bad day :-;
Well, there is that. Then there's that I get annoyed by people posting
300 line posts which boil down to "Why is my personal subjective and
completely unsupported opinion that games which I subjectively feel to
have an undefined humanistic low-tech feel are more successful than
games which I subjectively feel to have an undefined high-tech feel?
Discuss."
--
"After Generation X, came Generation Whine"
- Xocyll, comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, 2005.
Mean_Chlorine
>>Inquiring minds want to... no, actually they simply don't care. I'll
>>just tell Alex to fuck off again instead. Sometimes I just can't be
>>arsed.
>
>Yes, saying "fuck off" over and over in your message sure provided
>more insightful content than my "useless fluff".
Indeed it did. I'm glad we can agree on that at least.
Nostromo
2005 14:38:56 -0800, Anno Domini:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:15:14 +1100, Nostromo
><nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Thus spake Alexander <dontbo...@imthinking.com>, Fri, 30 Dec 2005
>>02:36:16 -0500, Anno Domini:
>
>>>I will say it again..... THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCI-FI VERSUS FANTASY.
>>
>>Well it's sci-fi (or aliens/tech/space themes) vs the rest. And as lot of
>>*the rest* in gaming is fantasy, which ppl seem to prefer to lean towards. I
>>still haven't seen any concrete rationale as to why though - my own
>>arguments towards 'simplicity' or 'immersion' are mere speculation.
>
>Also, people can extrapolate from their everyday experience much more
>to fantasy than to science fiction. It's more "comfortable". Hell,
>some classic works of "fantasy" have no fantastic element at all, and
>might well be pure historical fiction.
Know what you mean - series like Martin's A Song of Ice & Fire and Hobb's
Assassin trilogy are very low in 'techno-magic' - it's much more about
politics, court intrigue, conflict, personalities & characterisations.
Nostromo
>Sorry it seemed that way - it really wasn't. My actual point was that
>science fiction is not only less popular as a gaming genre, but as a
>genre /period/. This is not irrelevant, but crucially important to
>understanding the issue. If science fiction per se does not strike a
>chord with a mass audience, science fiction games aren't going to,
>either. That was why I dragged in the r.a.sf.w. discussion - it's
>gone on so long because it's clear that science fiction per se clearly
>is getting less popular with time, and even industry insiders can't
>figure out why. This naturally extends to the science fiction gaming
>industry.
I have an idea I'll throw out there: the average Joe is becoming less & less
imaginative or creative as modern life in the Western world just hands
everything to him on a platter. Why look to the future when every one of
life's possible hedonistic satiations are available right now?
>>because not only is your post completely
>>irrelevant to my point here (which is really more like realism versus
>>sci-fi plus fantasy),
>
>This is the core misunderstanding. The term "humanism" brings in a
>lot of baggage that is better left outside this discussion. On a
>continuum, fantasy is much more "realistic" than science fiction, as
>it shares quite a bit with plain history, and is thus much closer to
>ordinary experience than science fiction is. So I was considering
>fantasy to be a close cousin of technothrillers/historical/etc. for
>purposes of genre. You might want to make a more rigid distinction,
>but IMO the proper breakdown is either "reality vs. fantasy vs. SF" or
>"reality+fantasy" vs. SF. This is why I seem to keep harping on SF.
Good point. I made it with my previous clarification of 'sci-fi vs
non-sci-fi' ;). Shows like Star Wars & Star Trek are space operas & hardly
sci-fi per se - this needs clarification I think.
>>I never ignited a "sci-fi versus humanism" debate as you apparently
>>thought. Humanism is a broad term that usually means things far
>>outside the scope of this discussion.
>
>Which is exactly what I was saying - thus the comment of "shallow".
>If you were addressing "realism", rather than "humanism", your level
>of detail is quite appropriate, and I retract any implied insult.
Keeping in mind that the assertion that humanism & sci-fi are diametrically
opposed is a misnomer imo. Yes, 'realism' is perhaps a better choice of
terms, because if you use humanism the topic will quickly devolve into a
religious debate, mark me words ;)
>> Otherwise I will stick
>>to other, more qualified follow ups to my thread. I encourage you to
>>read my original post and read it well.
>
>It certainly makes a difference that "realism" is what was intended.
>Do you have any comments on the middle part of my post, which was
>specifically about SF in gaming?
>
>>I will say it again..... THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCI-FI VERSUS FANTASY.
>
>I'm not so sure. I think that is yet to be proven. Science fiction
>and everyday realism are at two ends of the spectrum, but where
>fantasy goes on it is still debatable, I think. There is at least an
>argument that fantasy is closer to "real" than it is to science
>fiction - and its placement is clearly germane to the discussion.
Real 'fantasy', the likes of Alice In Wonderland & other true fairy tales
(kid or adult), is not likely to overshadow 'realism' in movies or games,
for the same reason: too taxing on the imagination & suspension of disbelief
centres for the average Joe - they just don't get it & it therefore doesn't
entertain. That's my take anyway.
Nostromo
2005 01:39:11 +0100, Anno Domini:
>Thusly Walter Mitty <mitt...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Come on girls : handbags away.
>
>Negative on that. I've finally found a handbag which fits two bricks
>and has metal-reinforced edges.
>
>>FWIW, I thought your discussion was interesting and far from fluffy,
>>but all to their own : I guess you caught MC on a real bad day :-;
>
>Well, there is that. Then there's that I get annoyed by people posting
>300 line posts which boil down to "Why is my personal subjective and
>completely unsupported opinion that games which I subjectively feel to
>have an undefined humanistic low-tech feel are more successful than
>games which I subjectively feel to have an undefined high-tech feel?
>Discuss."
You're a hard man MC.
Alexander
<crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Which is exactly what I was saying - thus the comment of "shallow".
>If you were addressing "realism", rather than "humanism", your level
>of detail is quite appropriate, and I retract any implied insult.
Ok, clarification received and appreciated. I am going to try to
explain what I mean by humanism in this context, with the disclaimer
that there may have been a better word for the notion I am trying to
express.
However, I need to qualify the word itself within the context it was
used, and try to explain how it differs from realism, then if you can
think of a better word to fit the concept, I will stand educated.
I'd like to start by taking the first definition of the word humanism
from Dictionary.com: "A system of thought that centers on humans and
their values, capacities, and worth".
The first few words of that definition are perhaps key to explaning
myself here. The notion of a "system of thought" seems almost
essential to creation of a computer game, a central system of thought
that permeates the fundamental design of the game. That central
system of thought would really be what defines the game, even though
it might not be easily classified into a particular genre, or it might
overlap multiple genres. One might say that all games incorporate
multiple systems of thought, and to that I would say "surely"; even
perhaps take that a bit further and say that each of those systems of
thought could in turn contain sub-systems of thought and so on, ad
infinitum. No doubt, however, as in all functioning things, the
sub-systems would need to support the central system.
So if we look for examples of a system of thought that centers on
humans in games, we are indeed in search of examples of humanism in
games. Again, I am open to suggestions for improved terminology here,
but it seemed the most fitting word for the concept I was trying to
convey.
What is "humanism" in games then, and how does it differ from
"realism"?
I submit a game with an emphasis on "realism" would make every
possible effort to mimic reality to the extent possible without taking
away too much entertainment value from the game.
In constrast, a game with an emphasis oh "humanism" would make every
possible attempt to connect the player to things he can relate to at a
"human" level -- to make him feel like the game connects him to
concepts and/or emotions he is familiar with in his real, everyday
life.
By this definition, a realistic game might be a flight simulator, in
which the designer is meticulous about modeling the physics of flight,
the plane's cockpit, and so forth.
How would a game designer make this game more humanistic? First, by
removing the difficulty of "real world" flight physics, and softening
the learning curve involved in truly understanding all the controls.
When I think of an extreme case of "humanism" applied to flight
simulators, I think back to Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, quite possibly
the most humanistic flight sim I've seen (and one of the least
realistic). The game itself was not very realistic at all, you could
engage in combat planes that were historically not even in the same
era, and do things with the planes that wasn't physically possible.
Another example... the Super Mario / Donkey Kong type games have
always been drawn a huge audience. People seem to identify with
monkeys, perhaps because their proximity to humans on the evolutionary
tree (sidenote - this is also evident in the success of King Kong
movies, same story remade 3 times and drawing huge crowds at the box
office). And Mario himself, he is an identifiable character because
we all know someone who looks like him (and disturbingly, many of us
know someone who talks like him). There was not an effort in the
Mario games to focus on realism. There are all kinds of magical items
like that turn into coins or beanstalks or stars that reward you with
points. But Mario himself, he kind runs around like a cute little 3
year old boy... something that connects to a lot of people on a human
level in a way that a futuristic Unreal Tournament player model just
cannot.
Yet another example within the same genre: World of Warcraft and
GuildWars. Personally I closed down my WoW after the first month and
I instantly fell in love with GuildWars. I thought GW was a superior
game in everyway, except for the fact that the WoW world can continue
to evolve and adapt due to the ongoing revenue stream. However, the
cartoonish nature of WoW seems to have connected to a larger audience.
Not my cup of tea personally, but as I was playing I did notice the
dialogs from the NPCs seemed really targeted at appealing to the
masses, not just hardcore RPGers. Bottom line is WoW has a lot more
players and has been a bigger revenue generator, even if for the
monthly fee requirement... it still takes a successful game to draw in
an audience and keep them playing and paying month after month.
As I typed those examples and explained my preference for GW over WoW,
I am growing worried someone (not you Craig but others) will think I
am suggesting Chuck Yeager was better than Falcon or Mario is better
than Unreal. That's not my point at all. And I could go into
infinite numbers of examples which would seem disjointed from each
other due to the complexity of the notion of humanism in games.
But hopefully I've shed a little bit of light on, at least what I
meant, by humanism.
The bottom line is that humanism COULD BE present in any game. It's
just that for whatever reason, it seems to be more present in
non-space age games. I don't know why that's true, it just is. I've
seen some space-age games with a humanistic feel (I mentioned Wing
Commander before -- the depth of the character interaction was I think
the key humanistic element in that case), but as a general rule it
seems the space games (not to be confused with sci-fi) tend to be a
little light on the humanistic element.
So, I hope you can understand why I said my statements are not about
Alexander
While you have my sympathies that you're unable to discern sarcasm
from a compliment, I hope you feel like you won something and are in
the mood to go in the bathroom and treat yourself to a
self-congratulatory handjob now.
Alexander
<mike_no...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Thusly Walter Mitty <mitt...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Come on girls : handbags away.
>
>Negative on that. I've finally found a handbag which fits two bricks
>and has metal-reinforced edges.
>
>>FWIW, I thought your discussion was interesting and far from fluffy,
>>but all to their own : I guess you caught MC on a real bad day :-;
>
>Well, there is that. Then there's that I get annoyed by people posting
>300 line posts which boil down to "Why is my personal subjective and
>completely unsupported opinion that games which I subjectively feel to
>have an undefined humanistic low-tech feel are more successful than
>games which I subjectively feel to have an undefined high-tech feel?
>Discuss."
And how unfortunate it is for you on the roughest day of your
menstrual cycle that a number of people here (apparently with higher
IQs I might add), thought it was a topic that was worthy of
discussion.
Craig Richardson
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>Thus spake Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net>, Fri, 30 Dec
>2005 14:38:56 -0800, Anno Domini:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:15:14 +1100, Nostromo
>><nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Thus spake Alexander <dontbo...@imthinking.com>, Fri, 30 Dec 2005
>>>02:36:16 -0500, Anno Domini:
>>
>>>>I will say it again..... THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCI-FI VERSUS FANTASY.
>>>
>>>Well it's sci-fi (or aliens/tech/space themes) vs the rest. And as lot of
>>>*the rest* in gaming is fantasy, which ppl seem to prefer to lean towards. I
>>>still haven't seen any concrete rationale as to why though - my own
>>>arguments towards 'simplicity' or 'immersion' are mere speculation.
>>
>>Also, people can extrapolate from their everyday experience much more
>>to fantasy than to science fiction. It's more "comfortable". Hell,
>>some classic works of "fantasy" have no fantastic element at all, and
>>might well be pure historical fiction.
>
>Know what you mean - series like Martin's A Song of Ice & Fire and Hobb's
>Assassin trilogy are very low in 'techno-magic' - it's much more about
>politics, court intrigue, conflict, personalities & characterisations.
Right. The sort of thing that anyone who's ever worked in an office
feels right at home with... Thus the "comfort level".
Note that it's possible to get the same feel in science fiction, but
harder - the technology has a tendency to get in the way and put the
characters at a further remove than with most fantasy.
Not to mention - space is /big/. Even compared to epics that take
place on Earth or a fantasy analogue. The very "sensawunda" that we
come to science fiction for does itself minimize the characters in a
number of ways. Not only are they less important than characters in a
more "realistic" setting, their concerns aren't on the same scale as
our own, making it harder to identify with them. Yet another thing
putting the characters at a remove.
Craig Richardson
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>Thus spake Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net>, Fri, 30 Dec
>2005 14:36:06 -0800, Anno Domini:
>
>>Sorry it seemed that way - it really wasn't. My actual point was that
>>science fiction is not only less popular as a gaming genre, but as a
>>genre /period/. This is not irrelevant, but crucially important to
>>understanding the issue. If science fiction per se does not strike a
>>chord with a mass audience, science fiction games aren't going to,
>>either. That was why I dragged in the r.a.sf.w. discussion - it's
>>gone on so long because it's clear that science fiction per se clearly
>>is getting less popular with time, and even industry insiders can't
>>figure out why. This naturally extends to the science fiction gaming
>>industry.
>
>I have an idea I'll throw out there: the average Joe is becoming less & less
>imaginative or creative as modern life in the Western world just hands
>everything to him on a platter. Why look to the future when every one of
>life's possible hedonistic satiations are available right now?
Another, similar posit: For whatever reason, the entertainment
pendulum has (temporarily?) swung from "strive to be better than I am
now" to "reinforce my self-image by comparing myself to those less
fortunate". Witness "reality tv". And "COPS".
>>>because not only is your post completely
>>>irrelevant to my point here (which is really more like realism versus
>>>sci-fi plus fantasy),
>>
>>This is the core misunderstanding. The term "humanism" brings in a
>>lot of baggage that is better left outside this discussion. On a
>>continuum, fantasy is much more "realistic" than science fiction, as
>>it shares quite a bit with plain history, and is thus much closer to
>>ordinary experience than science fiction is. So I was considering
>>fantasy to be a close cousin of technothrillers/historical/etc. for
>>purposes of genre. You might want to make a more rigid distinction,
>>but IMO the proper breakdown is either "reality vs. fantasy vs. SF" or
>>"reality+fantasy" vs. SF. This is why I seem to keep harping on SF.
>
>Good point. I made it with my previous clarification of 'sci-fi vs
>non-sci-fi' ;). Shows like Star Wars & Star Trek are space operas & hardly
>sci-fi per se - this needs clarification I think.
There is a very good argument to be made that Star Wars is more
fantasy than science fiction in the first place. It's weaker since
the prequels came out, and not necessarily compelling - but it's
harder than one might think to make it go away entirely.
And "Star Trek" was successful because it was - in the terms of this
discussion - more "realistic" than most "true" science fiction. The
characters and their motivations were taken straight out of the 60s
milieu, and the technology was all handwaving. Kirk (and McCoy even
more so) was Everyman, and his concerns were ours. Instantly
recognizable if you met him on the street (STIV aside).
>>>I never ignited a "sci-fi versus humanism" debate as you apparently
>>>thought. Humanism is a broad term that usually means things far
>>>outside the scope of this discussion.
>>
>>Which is exactly what I was saying - thus the comment of "shallow".
>>If you were addressing "realism", rather than "humanism", your level
>>of detail is quite appropriate, and I retract any implied insult.
>
>Keeping in mind that the assertion that humanism & sci-fi are diametrically
>opposed is a misnomer imo. Yes, 'realism' is perhaps a better choice of
>terms, because if you use humanism the topic will quickly devolve into a
>religious debate, mark me words ;)
That's what I was acknowledging above. That term has a /lot/ of
baggage, and it's best to be sure that you only invoke it when you
intend to deal with the baggage, at length. Avoid when possible, IOW.
>>> Otherwise I will stick
>>>to other, more qualified follow ups to my thread. I encourage you to
>>>read my original post and read it well.
>>
>>It certainly makes a difference that "realism" is what was intended.
>>Do you have any comments on the middle part of my post, which was
>>specifically about SF in gaming?
>>
>>>I will say it again..... THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCI-FI VERSUS FANTASY.
>>
>>I'm not so sure. I think that is yet to be proven. Science fiction
>>and everyday realism are at two ends of the spectrum, but where
>>fantasy goes on it is still debatable, I think. There is at least an
>>argument that fantasy is closer to "real" than it is to science
>>fiction - and its placement is clearly germane to the discussion.
>
>Real 'fantasy', the likes of Alice In Wonderland & other true fairy tales
>(kid or adult), is not likely to overshadow 'realism' in movies or games,
>for the same reason: too taxing on the imagination & suspension of disbelief
>centres for the average Joe - they just don't get it & it therefore doesn't
>entertain. That's my take anyway.
We're very legalistic (getting more so all the time), and we like to
have things obey laws. "Fairy Tale" fantasy is whimsical, and laws
aren't there to be broken - they often aren't there in the first
place. OTOH, in science fiction there are too many laws, and (like
police procedurals) the resulting explanations turn off all but true
fans. "Swords and sorcery" fantasy is much closer to real life - even
sorcery has to obey certain conventions (or laws), so "realism" isn't
broken, or not as much.
--Craig
Craig Richardson
<dontbo...@imthinking.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:36:06 -0800, Craig Richardson
><crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Which is exactly what I was saying - thus the comment of "shallow".
>>If you were addressing "realism", rather than "humanism", your level
>>of detail is quite appropriate, and I retract any implied insult.
>
>
>Ok, clarification received and appreciated. I am going to try to
>explain what I mean by humanism in this context, with the disclaimer
>that there may have been a better word for the notion I am trying to
>express.
[much good explanation snipped]
Okay, I get the distinction now. I wish there was a better word than
"humanism" for it, though - although I can't think of any offhand.
>The bottom line is that humanism COULD BE present in any game. It's
>just that for whatever reason, it seems to be more present in
>non-space age games. I don't know why that's true, it just is. I've
>seen some space-age games with a humanistic feel (I mentioned Wing
>Commander before -- the depth of the character interaction was I think
>the key humanistic element in that case), but as a general rule it
>seems the space games (not to be confused with sci-fi) tend to be a
>little light on the humanistic element.
Elsethread, I put forward a couple of ideas that might be relevant.
To wit:
- SF is often technology-driven, even in games. Technothrillers can
fall victim to this, too - but it seems that modern "Splinter Cell"
games are more concerned with character dynamics than some of their
predecessors. But the SF field is rife with them - from "Elite" to
its spiritual descendent "Starfury" it's all about the ship and
improving it. While the guy at the center - you - are a cipher.
"X-Wing/Tie Fighter" are halfway to "Wing Commander", but the ships
are still more important than the people.
- Space is big. And cold. And dark. And character's concerns are at
a grander scale, too. Often to the point that we can't relate. Look
at "Master Of Orion 3" vs. "Civilization 3". The latter connects on a
human level, as we viscerally follow along with what is going on. The
former is, of necessity, faceless and impersonal /because that's what
being a Galactic Emperor would really be like/. But that doesn't make
it so that we can relate.
I'll throw out another, related idea:
- Because space is so big, and cold, and dark, the technology of
gaming - hardware and software - is only now beginning to be able to
represent a science fiction environment in as "realistic" a manner as
more normal (or even fantasy) environments. Now, "realism" might not
be the same as "humanism", but a lack of "realism" throws up another
barrier between the player and the character, making it harder to
establish a "humanistic" connection.
I'm glad the volume got turned down on this discussion - I think it's
turning out quite valuable.
--Craig
Nostromo
>Right. The sort of thing that anyone who's ever worked in an office
>feels right at home with... Thus the "comfort level".
>
>Note that it's possible to get the same feel in science fiction, but
>harder - the technology has a tendency to get in the way and put the
>characters at a further remove than with most fantasy.
>
>Not to mention - space is /big/. Even compared to epics that take
>place on Earth or a fantasy analogue. The very "sensawunda" that we
>come to science fiction for does itself minimize the characters in a
>number of ways. Not only are they less important than characters in a
>more "realistic" setting, their concerns aren't on the same scale as
>our own, making it harder to identify with them. Yet another thing
>putting the characters at a remove.
>
>--Craig
Yup - in most fantasy the object is to get the viewer/reader/player to
identify with the hero(es) (or be him/them) who is the centre of the
Universe, in fact, most of the entire Universe for all intents & purposes.
In sci-fi, space & the 'real' Universe make one feel small & insignificant,
which most people don't like because they feel that way most of the time in
RL. Harsh, I know, but it rings true to me ;)
I was just watching the BBC Horizon episode "Parallel Universes" last night
where they talk about M-Theory & 'Membranes' that form the fabric of the
multiverse, with our own Big Bang & puny little universe being nothing more
than a collision of two of these infinite no of membranes. Scary. Lucky I
was having pizza or I would've got depressed. >8^D
Nostromo
>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:54:23 +1100, Nostromo
><nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>
>>I have an idea I'll throw out there: the average Joe is becoming less & less
>>imaginative or creative as modern life in the Western world just hands
>>everything to him on a platter. Why look to the future when every one of
>>life's possible hedonistic satiations are available right now?
>
>Another, similar posit: For whatever reason, the entertainment
>pendulum has (temporarily?) swung from "strive to be better than I am
>now" to "reinforce my self-image by comparing myself to those less
>fortunate". Witness "reality tv". And "COPS".
Yeah, I could swallow that. Reality tv is a whole nother beast though & the
people that watch it may not be the same demographic as those who prefer
non-sci-fi over sci-fi, even though to be fair there has been no sci-fi
reality tv show to date, unless you count Jenna's American Sex Star. >;-)
>>Good point. I made it with my previous clarification of 'sci-fi vs
>>non-sci-fi' ;). Shows like Star Wars & Star Trek are space operas & hardly
>>sci-fi per se - this needs clarification I think.
>
>There is a very good argument to be made that Star Wars is more
>fantasy than science fiction in the first place. It's weaker since
>the prequels came out, and not necessarily compelling - but it's
>harder than one might think to make it go away entirely.
Yup.
>And "Star Trek" was successful because it was - in the terms of this
>discussion - more "realistic" than most "true" science fiction. The
>characters and their motivations were taken straight out of the 60s
>milieu, and the technology was all handwaving. Kirk (and McCoy even
>more so) was Everyman, and his concerns were ours. Instantly
>recognizable if you met him on the street (STIV aside).
Too true. This is why sci-fi like Iain Banks or Peter Hamilton, or even some
of Clarke's, Asimov's or Heinlein's heavier stuff doesn't reach a mainstream
audience, whereas Firefly/Serenity (from the creator of Buffy!), as good as
it is, does. And then there's hardcore fantasy (like some of Le guin's
works) which will never reach the mainstream either. Personally, I don't get
into the _much_ heavier stuff myself, so perhaps others know of fantasy that
is 'way out there' that for that reason isn't mainstream.
>>>>I never ignited a "sci-fi versus humanism" debate as you apparently
>>>>thought. Humanism is a broad term that usually means things far
>>>>outside the scope of this discussion.
>>>
>>>Which is exactly what I was saying - thus the comment of "shallow".
>>>If you were addressing "realism", rather than "humanism", your level
>>>of detail is quite appropriate, and I retract any implied insult.
>>
>>Keeping in mind that the assertion that humanism & sci-fi are diametrically
>>opposed is a misnomer imo. Yes, 'realism' is perhaps a better choice of
>>terms, because if you use humanism the topic will quickly devolve into a
>>religious debate, mark me words ;)
>
>That's what I was acknowledging above. That term has a /lot/ of
>baggage, and it's best to be sure that you only invoke it when you
>intend to deal with the baggage, at length. Avoid when possible, IOW.
:)
>>Real 'fantasy', the likes of Alice In Wonderland & other true fairy tales
>>(kid or adult), is not likely to overshadow 'realism' in movies or games,
>>for the same reason: too taxing on the imagination & suspension of disbelief
>>centres for the average Joe - they just don't get it & it therefore doesn't
>>entertain. That's my take anyway.
>
>We're very legalistic (getting more so all the time), and we like to
>have things obey laws. "Fairy Tale" fantasy is whimsical, and laws
>aren't there to be broken - they often aren't there in the first
>place. OTOH, in science fiction there are too many laws, and (like
>police procedurals) the resulting explanations turn off all but true
>fans. "Swords and sorcery" fantasy is much closer to real life - even
>sorcery has to obey certain conventions (or laws), so "realism" isn't
>broken, or not as much.
Internal self-consistency I'd call that. Doesn't have to be follow
real-world laws, so long as the make-believe laws are clear & simple,
implied or otherwise. If they are broken, then it is usually in context &
associated with a major event or WOW factor, so that's permitted too for
average audiences.
Nostromo
20:24:25 -0500, Anno Domini:
<snip>
>As I typed those examples and explained my preference for GW over WoW,
>I am growing worried someone (not you Craig but others) will think I
>am suggesting Chuck Yeager was better than Falcon or Mario is better
>than Unreal. That's not my point at all. And I could go into
>infinite numbers of examples which would seem disjointed from each
>other due to the complexity of the notion of humanism in games.
>
>But hopefully I've shed a little bit of light on, at least what I
>meant, by humanism.
>
>The bottom line is that humanism COULD BE present in any game. It's
>just that for whatever reason, it seems to be more present in
>non-space age games. I don't know why that's true, it just is. I've
>seen some space-age games with a humanistic feel (I mentioned Wing
>Commander before -- the depth of the character interaction was I think
>the key humanistic element in that case), but as a general rule it
>seems the space games (not to be confused with sci-fi) tend to be a
>little light on the humanistic element.
>
>So, I hope you can understand why I said my statements are not about
Tx for the clarification Alex. I think perhaps you could add to this chain
of thought that any fantasy or non-sci-fi setting is in principle (if not in
fact) usually based in the present or past, all of which are known
quantities & most ppl can relate to, identify with & 'quantify' with their
imaginations, thus perhaps more 'humanistic'. Sci-fi or parallel universe
settings, even fantasy settings where humans are not the principle
characters, are quite often very far removed from our current existence,
whether spatially, by time, or by association, so they would by your defn be
less humanistic, thus less attractive to a general audience.
Xocyll
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
signs say:
>I can't believe you guys are actually arguing this. There is ZERO
>evidence presented in this thread apart from personal opinion and
>hearsay. Hell, even the genres aren't defined. This is pure fluff.
This is usenet.
Your point was what again?
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:39:11 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
You must be new to the whole usenet thing.
We discuss all kinds of relatively pointless things here so don't go
feeling all special or validated.
Bottom line in the whole fantasy game vs sci-fi game - fantasy gets made
more because it's a lot more work making a sci-fi game, having a
plausible storyline, believable weapons and other tech and so on and
doing so while dodging all possible comparisons to Star Trek or Star
Wars.
It's easy to believe that two guys flailed away at each other with
swords for 5 minutes and neither of them died.
When one guy is hosing down the entire area the second guy is in with a
full auto shotgun, it's not believable at all that guy two doesn't
resemble mulch, much less is unharmed.
It's infinitely easier to throw in a few elves and halflings, an
assortment of swords and armor, some dismal dungeons and spooky swamps
and top it off with a plot Tolkien wouldn't wipe his ass with.
Alexander
wrote:
>Alexander <dontbo...@imthinking.com> looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:39:11 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
>><mike_no...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Thusly Walter Mitty <mitt...@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>>>
>>>>Come on girls : handbags away.
>>>
>>>Negative on that. I've finally found a handbag which fits two bricks
>>>and has metal-reinforced edges.
>>>
>>>>FWIW, I thought your discussion was interesting and far from fluffy,
>>>>but all to their own : I guess you caught MC on a real bad day :-;
>>>
>>>Well, there is that. Then there's that I get annoyed by people posting
>>>300 line posts which boil down to "Why is my personal subjective and
>>>completely unsupported opinion that games which I subjectively feel to
>>>have an undefined humanistic low-tech feel are more successful than
>>>games which I subjectively feel to have an undefined high-tech feel?
>>>Discuss."
>>
>>And how unfortunate it is for you on the roughest day of your
>>menstrual cycle that a number of people here (apparently with higher
>>IQs I might add), thought it was a topic that was worthy of
>>discussion.
>
>You must be new to the whole usenet thing.
You're apparently very new to the whole reading thing, because you
missed a very important point that's been reiterated somewhere around
a half dozen times, if not more, all in this thread, all prior to your
post.. which is..... (scroll to bottom if you're not afraid of
spoilers)
>
>Bottom line in the whole fantasy game vs sci-fi game - fantasy gets made
>more because it's a lot more work making a sci-fi game, having a
>plausible storyline, believable weapons and other tech and so on and
>doing so while dodging all possible comparisons to Star Trek or Star
>Wars.
>It's easy to believe that two guys flailed away at each other with
>swords for 5 minutes and neither of them died.
>When one guy is hosing down the entire area the second guy is in with a
>full auto shotgun, it's not believable at all that guy two doesn't
>resemble mulch, much less is unharmed.
>
>It's infinitely easier to throw in a few elves and halflings, an
>assortment of swords and armor, some dismal dungeons and spooky swamps
>and top it off with a plot Tolkien wouldn't wipe his ass with.
The thread was never about swords versus lasers or sci-fi versus
fantasy. Your argument was that sci-fi is harder to make, which would
never flush anywhere except a low-IQ toilet. Sci-fi is easier to make
because it is dreamed up by the designer -- the designer can do no
wrong because he has nothing to be benchmarked to except his own
imagination. Nobody can say "hey, this game sucks because the shape
of the aliens heads are not modeled correctly", because how correct
those aliens heads are exists only in the mind of children and like
minded imaginative adults. It is much harder to model the realism of
a plethora of real world assault rifles, because many of us have used
them before and thus will be turned off by a game we cannot relate to.
Alexander
wrote:
>Mean_Chlorine <mike_no...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> looked up from reading
>the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
>signs say:
>
>>I can't believe you guys are actually arguing this. There is ZERO
>>evidence presented in this thread apart from personal opinion and
>>hearsay. Hell, even the genres aren't defined. This is pure fluff.
>
>
>This is usenet.
>
>Your point was what again?
>
That you're an idiot.
Alexander
<dontbo...@imthinking.com> wrote:
Honestly I'm not why this post got cut short. My creative key mapping
wigged out on me perhaps? There was more... I dont remember exactly
what it was, and I was almost to the conclusion, but there really was
more, just for the record :)
Werner Spahl
> multiplayer game in history, and that is probably due to the fact it
> is (somewhat) based on realistic modern weaponry. Its not "realistic"
I see one problem for futuristic games here, in that most don't manage to
give their weapons the "kick" that realistic weapons supply. That includes
sounds and visuals and for example, Halo did it right and Battlefront II
does it wrong. The latter ones weapons just sound more like toys to me ;).
--
Werner Spahl (sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
Werner Spahl
> When most people speak of HL2, they are also speaking of
> Counterstrike:Source, which Valve has said really sold the game.
This is the first time that I hear something like this. Do you
have any articles to prove that Valve really said this?
Werner Spahl
> We all know the reason HL2 sold so well was because we all realised
> the benefit to the planet from using Steam and not having all these
> horrible plastic CDs and DVDs lying around.
Again baiting after all that killfile stuff, Walter ;)?
Mean_Chlorine
>>>Yes, saying "fuck off" over and over in your message sure provided
>>>more insightful content than my "useless fluff".
>>
>>Indeed it did. I'm glad we can agree on that at least.
>
>While you have my sympathies that you're unable to discern sarcasm
>from a compliment
It was sarcasm? Here I was thinking you'd had a rare moment of
clarity.
So, have you defined what you mean by "humanistic feel", "low tech"
and "high tech" and plotted that against sales figures yet? No? Still
just idly speculating based on conjecture in turn based on nothing but
your personal opinion and your pet theory?
>, I hope you feel like you won something and are in
>the mood to go in the bathroom and treat yourself to a
>self-congratulatory handjob now.
I think you're taking your 'humanistic feel' spiel a tad too far.
Oh, I almost forgot: fuck off.
--
"We also found that for university students, total time spent in the recent past
on video games has a potential detrimental effect on grades."
-- Anderson & Dill makes a Discovery, in 'Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts,
Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life'. 2004.
Mean_Chlorine
>>Well, there is that. Then there's that I get annoyed by people posting
>>300 line posts which boil down to "Why is my personal subjective and
>>completely unsupported opinion that games which I subjectively feel to
>>have an undefined humanistic low-tech feel are more successful than
>>games which I subjectively feel to have an undefined high-tech feel?
>>Discuss."
>
>And how unfortunate it is for you on the roughest day of your
>menstrual cycle that a number of people here (apparently with higher
>IQs I might add), thought it was a topic that was worthy of
>discussion.
Yes, because they misunderstood you as saying that sci-fi games sell
worse than fantasy games, and mistakenly thought you had some sort of
basis for asserting this. This is what they're presently discussing,
while extrapolating from sales of novels, in case you haven't noticed.
They still haven't realized that what you're actually saying is simply
that gamers buy games they can relate to.
Presumably because that's such a vacuous, vapid, self-evident point to
anyone over the age of 7 that they can't believe anyone would spend
300 lines trying to make it _and fail_.
Once they do realize this, however, they might start wondering things
like what this has to do with "high tech feel" and "low tech feel",
and notice that you've simply minted new terms for 'soft sci-fi' and
'hard sci-fi' (look those terms up).
They might even notice that wrt action games "high tech" outsells "low
tech" by a very wide margin (Half Life, Doom, Quake, Far Cry, Riddick,
FEAR - all "high tech" sci-fi), and that your entire point is in fact
bunk.
So, I may have mentioned this before, but: Fuck Off.
Mean_Chlorine
>I submit a game with an emphasis on "realism" would make every
>possible effort to mimic reality to the extent possible without taking
>away too much entertainment value from the game.
>In constrast, a game with an emphasis oh "humanism" would make every
>possible attempt to connect the player to things he can relate to at a
>"human" level
Moron. The terms you're looking for is 'soft sci fi' and 'hard sci
fi'. Look them up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction
Humanism, on the other hand, is a moral-philosophy and the foundation
of e.g. the bill of human rights, it is not touchy-feeliness like you
believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
>Another example... the Super Mario / Donkey Kong type games have
>always been drawn a huge audience. People seem to identify with
>monkeys
LOL!
Yeah, donkey kong sells because it's so easy to identify with Kong,
Doom, Half-Life, Far Cry and Quake4 doesn't sell because it's so hard
to identify with a the human in the lead. Right?
Fuck off.
>The bottom line is that humanism COULD BE present in any game. It's
>just that for whatever reason, it seems to be more present in
>non-space age games.
Yeah, so you like to assert in support of your inane pet theory.
Fuck off.
Xocyll
Oh i've been reading it.
>>Bottom line in the whole fantasy game vs sci-fi game - fantasy gets made
>>more because it's a lot more work making a sci-fi game, having a
>>plausible storyline, believable weapons and other tech and so on and
>>doing so while dodging all possible comparisons to Star Trek or Star
>>Wars.
>>It's easy to believe that two guys flailed away at each other with
>>swords for 5 minutes and neither of them died.
>>When one guy is hosing down the entire area the second guy is in with a
>>full auto shotgun, it's not believable at all that guy two doesn't
>>resemble mulch, much less is unharmed.
>>
>>It's infinitely easier to throw in a few elves and halflings, an
>>assortment of swords and armor, some dismal dungeons and spooky swamps
>>and top it off with a plot Tolkien wouldn't wipe his ass with.
>
>The thread was never about swords versus lasers or sci-fi versus
>fantasy. Your argument was that sci-fi is harder to make, which would
>never flush anywhere except a low-IQ toilet. Sci-fi is easier to make
>because it is dreamed up by the designer -- the designer can do no
>wrong because he has nothing to be benchmarked to except his own
>imagination. Nobody can say "hey, this game sucks because the shape
>of the aliens heads are not modeled correctly", because how correct
>those aliens heads are exists only in the mind of children and like
>minded imaginative adults. It is much harder to model the realism of
>a plethora of real world assault rifles, because many of us have used
>them before and thus will be turned off by a game we cannot relate to.
And you apparently have the same reading problem you accuse others of
having.
The dreamed up by the designer line applies equally, if not more so, to
fantasy where anything and everything goes.
It's hard to make believable and _consistent_ sci-fi, and as I noted and
you missed, do so in a way that avoids Star Trek/Wars comparisons.
There is no "right" way to model an elf head and indeed it varies from
game to game.
As for your assault rifle realism comment, you apparently didn't
understand anything I wrote since you're making my point.
Weapons in sci-fi for the most part are extrapolations of real weapons
so it's sci-fi that has that particular problem.
Most people on the other hand, especially the teens half these games are
aimed at have never _seen_ a real sword or armor, much less actually
handled/used them. Zero difficulty from the "realism" factor.
Xocyll
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
> "Xocyll" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies mastering
> mommies computer when he ventured forth on 2005-12-31, commmitted
> his life to the whims of Google, and spluttered:
>
>>
>> There is no "right" way to model an elf head and indeed it varies from
>> game to game.
>>
>
>I dont agree with that at all. They might be fairy tale fiction, but
>there is an acknowledged "elf look"
You need to look around more.
Other than having pointed ears there's no set elf look.
And there's a wide variation in various books/games.
Some tall, some short, some with slightly pointed ears, others with ears
the size of bananas, some with huge necks. And that's not even getting
into the anime type elves.
Tolkien elves aren't the same as D&D elves, which aren't the same as
Final Fantasy elves, which aren't the same as WoW elves which...
They all have pointed ears, but then so do Vulcans.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>Walter Mitty <mitt...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>> "Xocyll" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies mastering
>> mommies computer when he ventured forth on 2005-12-31, commmitted
>> his life to the whims of Google, and spluttered:
>>
>>>
>>> There is no "right" way to model an elf head and indeed it varies from
>>> game to game.
>>>
>>
>>I dont agree with that at all. They might be fairy tale fiction, but
>>there is an acknowledged "elf look"
>
>You need to look around more.
>
>Other than having pointed ears there's no set elf look.
>And there's a wide variation in various books/games.
>
>Some tall, some short, some with slightly pointed ears, others with ears
>the size of bananas, some with huge necks. And that's not even getting
>into the anime type elves.
>
>Tolkien elves aren't the same as D&D elves, which aren't the same as
>Final Fantasy elves, which aren't the same as WoW elves which...
>
>They all have pointed ears, but then so do Vulcans.
>
>
>Xocyll
X, if you argue with an idiot, you just let him drag you down to his
level...that's all I've been saying all along about
he-who-shall-remain-nameless-but-constantly quoted. Your reply that 'There
is no "right" way to model an elf head' was almost a tautology, but at least
one denizen of this NG decided that it was worth arguing for the sake of
arguing. And lo & behold, guess who!? I rest my case your honour!
Alexander
Well folks, I got a bit caught up in the New Year festivities and
didn't really get a chance to follow up. When I got back, I saw a
spate of messages, some of which had good points, some of which were
pointless flames, and some were blatantly moronic. One stooge even
went so far as to use wikipedia.org as a reference to the definition
of humanism :D I love wikipedia and it is a valid democratic
encyclopedia with lots of great info, but there is a very big
difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary, and even
encyclopedias which are contributed to only by paid researchers who
have liability for lawsuits if they report in correctly make no
attempt to define words. The reason you cannot use an online
encyclopedia to look up the meaning of a word is because you are only
going to see articles that were contributed. In the case of
wikipedia, you will see the fruits of labor of those who felt like
contributing, but perhaps they were not motivated to spend the next 6
months researching and contributing truths on every aspect of the
subject without being paid for it.
As far as the definition of the word humanism, that is what a
dictionary is for. I not only provided a source for the english
definition of the word, I will go ahead and provide more. The
hardback Webster dictionary I have in front of me lists the
definitions in this order:
humanism -
1. any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests,
values and dignity are taken to be of primary importance, as in moral
judgements.
2. devotion to or study of the humanities
3. the studies, principals or culture of the Humanists
{definition of Humanist -
1. a student of human nature or affairs
2. a person having a strong interest in or concern for human
values
3. a person devoted to or versed in the humanities
4. a classical scholar
5. a person who follows a form of scientific or philosophical
humanism.}
Again I submit that that the word, by its primary definition according
to two separate dictionaries, fit the concept I was incorporating my
post better than any other word that came into my mind, and despite
much bitching on the part of one or two, nobody was able to offer a
better one.
Someone (without identifying anyone in specific for targeted
humiliation) said that what I was really trying to say is that people
like games they relate to. If I had to sum the entire concept I was
trying to communicate to a five year old, that might be a sufficient
attempt. They wouldn't quite have their brain wrapped around what I
meant, but it would be enough to keep them from crying. So if that
gives you a sense of complacency, I encourage you to rest comfortably
in your self-proclaimed victory. But that is not sufficient to
explain my original statement, which is that, when sold to the general
public, Alien/Starship type games will not generate as much revenue
for a game company as a more realistic/low tech game, because although
those games appeal to fans of StarWars or StarTrek or other sci-fi
fans, that fan base probably has a more vivid imagination regarding
space travel and the like than the general public does.
Someone said all of this is conjecture on my part and I need to
provide facts. I responded by saying I don't do other's research for
free. Without setting up some sort of wager system (we could do it
through an escrow service like PayPal), where I stand to get paid for
my efforts by winning a bet, I am completely unmotivated to do the
research on game sales figures. If someone wants to put their money
where their mouth is, I'm glad to oblige. But as a consultant, the
potential winning jackpot would have to be equal to or greater than my
hourly consulting rate when the total hours spent tracking down all
this game sales data were taken into consideration. Personally I
don't think any of this is going to happen, so I encourage anyone who
is really interested in game sales figures to do their own research.
A few of us can viscerally observe that the games I stated in my
original post are more successful in terms of not only sales but
player data than any game involving UFOs and little green men.
I'm not sure if folks without steam accounts can view this, but it is
a graph of Counterstrike players hitting the servers:
http://www.steampowered.com/status/status.html
for those that cant see the graph, here is what it read when I hit it:
current min max
Player Count 146,014 112,987 240,912
Server Count 94,331 81,121 124,593
There are your numbers, for the morons that have been clamoring for
them. Feel free to provide verifiable numbers for one space game that
have that stats like that in the last 48 hrs. Keep in mind this is a
game that has been out for 7 years. It is past its peak. It is not
the most realistic game on the planet, but it has quite possibily the
biggest "humanistic" element of any game in the sense that:
1. Its based on realistic weapons
2. Little green fuckers dont pop out of nowhere and kill you with some
laser gun. When you get attacked it is in a way you could only be
attacked in real life, by another human with a realistic weapon.
3. The weapons and physics do not defy reality in anyway (unless you
happen to get on a server with modified settings)
4. The VOIP, which is not only used, but used effectively more than in
any game I've ever witnessed, creates a sense of teamplay and social
loyalty more than any only game I've ever played. If there is one out
there that beats it in this sense please let me know because I will
check it out immediately. Some of the guys talking aren't always the
most intelligent beings I've encountered, but they use the
communication vehicle of VOIP to greatly enhance the HUMANISTIC
experience of the game.
I could say more but quite frankly, those who have responded to my
thoughts with flames and insults are a truly unimpressive bunch, and I
don't feel a moral obligation to continue with this much further.
Tomorrow is my last holiday off work, and I don't plan to spend 30
mins out of my day responding to hate follow ups.
So, I will say, if anyone here has been prompted to think about
something new in this thread, by my posts or anyone else's, then
something has been gained. Great.
If not? Then usenet is probably a waste of time for you, but feel
free to remain... its a free world here in usenet, and those who feel
content and comfortable in what they think they already know will
always have the right to hang out, like homeless on the street. You
have a right to be here as much anyone.
I am back to work in 2 days so if I don't get a chance to respond,
thanks to those who contributed something, even in disagreement, and
as for the immature flamers, may they find cancer in their central
nervous system before they get a chance to reproduce -- we have too
many retards on this earth as it is :) Feel free to flame away, as I
won't see them after 11:30pm EST US tonight, I will be on a plane.
Mean_Chlorine
>As far as the definition of the word humanism, that is what a
>dictionary is for.
And lo and behold, none of the definitions even resemble your usage of
the word.
>in your self-proclaimed victory. But that is not sufficient to
>explain my original statement, which is that, when sold to the general
>public, Alien/Starship type games will not generate as much revenue
>for a game company as a more realistic/low tech game, because although
>those games appeal to fans of StarWars or StarTrek or other sci-fi
>fans, that fan base probably has a more vivid imagination regarding
>space travel and the like than the general public does.
Wolfenstein, Quake 1-4, Half-life 2, Far Cry, Doom 1-3, Halo, FEAR,
Serious Sam 1-2 - they're _all high-tech sci-fi and all generated
revenue_. It's not about doing MY research you nitwit, it's about
doing YOURS.
>I am completely unmotivated to do the
>research on game sales figures.
Of course you are: they don't fit your pet theory. Much better, then,
to assert, assume, and redefine on-the-fly.
(The below is about Counterstrike. Yes, COUNTERSTRIKE!)
>It is not
>the most realistic game on the planet, but it has quite possibily the
>biggest "humanistic" element of any game in the sense that:
>
>1. Its based on realistic weapons
>2. Little green fuckers dont pop out of nowhere and kill you with some
>laser gun. When you get attacked it is in a way you could only be
>attacked in real life, by another human with a realistic weapon.
>3. The weapons and physics do not defy reality in anyway (unless you
>happen to get on a server with modified settings)
>4. The VOIP, which is not only used, but used effectively more than in
>any game I've ever witnessed, creates a sense of teamplay and social
>loyalty more than any only game I've ever played. If there is one out
>there that beats it in this sense please let me know because I will
>check it out immediately. Some of the guys talking aren't always the
>most intelligent beings I've encountered, but they use the
>communication vehicle of VOIP to greatly enhance the HUMANISTIC
>experience of the game.
Counterstrike is the most humanistic game?!
Which, exactly, of these dictionary definitions of Humanism you listed
is used here?
Counterstrike is a fine example of... deep interest in human values
and dignity?
You're aware that counterstrike is a _FREE_ modification of the
successful _SCI FI_ game Half-Life?
>I could say more but quite frankly, those who have responded to my
>thoughts with flames and insults are a truly unimpressive bunch, and I
>don't feel a moral obligation to continue with this much further.
Perhaps I've been to hard on you, perhaps you've just started thinking
about games, but the thing is: you have absolutely no basis for your
speculations, and your key concepts (high tech, low tech, humanism)
are either undefined or worse, as in the case of 'humanism', simply
mean whatever you need it to mean to support your theory. In your text
above, for instance, you use 'humanistic' = 'fun to you'. You like it,
hence it's humanistic.
Your point is void.
You know what I'm going to say next, don't you?
--
Prediction 1: The US will be found to have covert prisons in Macedonia,
Poland and Romania. Those in Egypt and Pakistan will not be found.
Werner Spahl
> Other than having pointed ears there's no set elf look.
Since when have elfes pointed ears, especially Tolkien ones?
Alexander
Any and all follow ups that exhibit learning disabilities and / or
reading comprehension issues (such as asserting things that ask me
re-iterate facts already presented in other threads) will be ignored.
Mean_Chlorine
>I forgot to mention the disclaimer :
Let me translate for those who do not speak geek: Alex is here saying
that he's tired of having fundamental flaws in his pet theory pointed
out to him, and will in the future only reply to people with the
correct appreciative attitude.
--
Ed: "That's no way for a man to die."
Frank: "No...you're right, Ed. A parachute not opening...that's a way to die.
Getting caught in the gears of a combine...having your nuts bit off by a Laplander,
that's the way I wanna go!"
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Xocyll wrote:
>
>> Other than having pointed ears there's no set elf look.
>
>Since when have elfes pointed ears, especially Tolkien ones?
It's been some time since I last read the books, but I watched the
movies a week or so ago and those elves most certainly had pointed ears.
All the D&D elf races have pointed ears.
As do the elf types (edhel) in Feist's riftwar books.
As do the elves in the Elder Scrolls games
What elves _don't_ have pointed ears?
Xocyll
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
signs say:
>Thusly Alexander <dontbo...@imthinking.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>I forgot to mention the disclaimer :
>>
>>Any and all follow ups that exhibit learning disabilities and / or
>>reading comprehension issues (such as asserting things that ask me
>>re-iterate facts already presented in other threads) will be ignored.
>
>Let me translate for those who do not speak geek: Alex is here saying
>that he's tired of having fundamental flaws in his pet theory pointed
>out to him, and will in the future only reply to people with the
>correct appreciative attitude.
Wait, So Alex is Eep?
Mean_Chlorine
>>Let me translate for those who do not speak geek: Alex is here saying
>>that he's tired of having fundamental flaws in his pet theory pointed
>>out to him, and will in the future only reply to people with the
>>correct appreciative attitude.
>
>Wait, So Alex is Eep?
<considers this disturbing possibility>
No, can't be. Alex uses linebreaks.
<breathes a sigh of relief>
>Xocyll
--
Chaos reigns within.
Reflect, repent and reboot.
Order shall return.
Werner Spahl
> It's been some time since I last read the books, but I watched the
> movies a week or so ago and those elves most certainly had pointed ears.
Then read the books again, I'm almost sure Tolkien never mentions pointed
ears in all his detailed descriptions. The movies don't count as I am sure
that Gimli was no clown in the books or the Olifants huge like AT-ATs ;).
I guess that Fantasy artists just got the pointed ears from fairies, which
Tolkien did not meant, to differ the elves somehow visible from humans...