Where have all the good games gone?!
MenTaLboY
Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
<32BF19...@mail.idt.net>...
> Yeah, why are all the new games either full of 3D graphic violence,
> or educational (i.e. not fun). What happened to games like Xargon
> and Commander Keen etc. ??? Why don't people make stuff like that
> anymore ???
Yeah! I agree 100%!
You know, why doesn't someone come out with, say, a mountain bike racing
game with a quake-like engine or something? I mean, I'm sure there would be
a market for that sort of thing; all the games with good graphics right now
are all DOOM-style...
--
___________________ _________________________
| | |
| men...@shendo.com | "The right to be wrong" |X
|___________________|_________________________|X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
weikel
Tenie Remmel (tj...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: Yeah, why are all the new games either full of 3D graphic violence,
: or educational (i.e. not fun). What happened to games like Xargon
: and Commander Keen etc. ??? Why don't people make stuff like that
: anymore ???
Personally, I've never met a strategy game I didn't like. :)
Check out the WarCraft and Heroes of Might and Magic games. I've
blown entire weekends playing these.
As for Graphic Violence and Edutainment, I'm afraid that's where
the money is. More and more game companies are being bought out
by large corperations. Said corperations would rather wring every
last penny from a proven formula than risk their money on wild new
concept.
Unfortunately, that means gameplay goes right out the window in
favor of neat-o bells and whistles. At least that is my guess. If
anyone believe anything different, speak up.
Glen Rhodes
Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Yeah, why are all the new games either full of 3D graphic violence,
>or educational (i.e. not fun). What happened to games like Xargon
>and Commander Keen etc. ??? Why don't people make stuff like that
>anymore ???
I'm writing a good one! A simple easy to play, fun side scroller -
like keen, actually more like Super Mario Brothers or Super Mario Land
but for the PC. Check it out. There is some information at the WEB
site.
http://www.pathcom.com/~glen/mediamax.htm
I'm looking for level designers right now.
Glen.
WarN
Personally, I also agree with you. I don't take offense to the violence in
newer games as much as others do, but I'm sick of seeing it everywhere.
All the new games coming out are the same old thing (everyone's always
saying that these days, but it's true). Graphics and 3D environments don't
make a game either. It takes innovative designing to make a good game.
Everyone wants to be a designer, but no one can seem to be competent at it.
Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
<32BF19...@mail.idt.net>...
Kaplan
I agree. I am writing a X-Com like strategy game except less advanced.
It'll be my first shareware (YIPEE!) if it gets published.
Jared Kaplan
weikel wrote:
>
> Tenie Remmel (tj...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
> : Yeah, why are all the new games either full of 3D graphic violence,
> : or educational (i.e. not fun). What happened to games like Xargon
> : and Commander Keen etc. ??? Why don't people make stuff like that
> : anymore ???
>
Arjan R. Brusssee
Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Yeah, why are all the new games either full of 3D graphic violence,
>or educational (i.e. not fun). What happened to games like Xargon
>and Commander Keen etc. ??? Why don't people make stuff like that
>anymore ???
hey, we're still making jazz-jackrabbit 2. We just built in full
multiplayer support, which absolutely rules and is the coolest
multiplayer platform thing we ourselves have played.
you'll like this! (check out www.epicgames.com/jazz2)
-arjan
Gordon Harlow
This seems to be an issue not just for the gaming community but the
entertainment industry in general. From my perspective too much attention
is being put into special effects and not enough into story line, interest
and depth. Although I must confess I find it easier to find fault with
something than to fix it, given the buying public appears to want 3D
violence and high tech special effects. We just got the Mario 64 which is
very impressive from a technology stand but maybe a little slow and tedious
in places?
Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
<32BF19...@mail.idt.net>...
WarN
If you ask me, and this is my opinion (of course), I think that the best
games out there are X-Com, Pirates! Gold, Jagged Alliance, and games of the
like. Kaplan, be sure to post a message to the newsgroup about the
progress of your game. I am a HUGE fan of strategy/action games. 3D just
doesn't do it for me any more. As far as the violence goes, I don't really
have a problem with it as long as it's appropriate for the game. Now, it
seems like the plots of most of the games that are coming out these days is
just to kill everything that moves and/or breathes. I need a little more
depth to keep myself interested in a game...
--
WarN
Kaplan <JKa...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<32C0A2...@concentric.net>...
> I agree. I am writing a X-Com like strategy game except less advanced.
> It'll be my first shareware (YIPEE!) if it gets published.
>
> Jared Kaplan
>
> weikel wrote:
> >
> > Tenie Remmel (tj...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
> > : Yeah, why are all the new games either full of 3D graphic violence,
> > : or educational (i.e. not fun). What happened to games like Xargon
> > : and Commander Keen etc. ??? Why don't people make stuff like that
> > : anymore ???
> >
to...@direct.ca
On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:46:29 -0800, Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net>
wrote:
>Yeah, why are all the new games either full of 3D graphic violence,
>or educational (i.e. not fun). What happened to games like Xargon
>and Commander Keen etc. ??? Why don't people make stuff like that
>anymore ???
Well I think that there are a lot of great games out there and more
are coming out every day. My personal favorites include Syndicate,
Syndiate Wars, Magic Carpet, Magic Carpet 2 and to be honest pretty
much all the other Bullfrog games (http://www.bullfrog.co.uk/).
Bullfrog always seems to mix the right amount of strategy with the
right amout of violence. This mixed with great graphics and original
plots always comes up good.
And no I am not trying to sell anybody on Bullfrog, all I am trying to
say is that [I think] violence is needed in games. The problem is that
a lot of game companies focus the entire game on simply blood and gore
and just great looks. You have to keep in mind gameplay and strategy.
That's the problem that I have with all the new sports games. It
seems that all the companies are trying to out do one another in the
number of possible camera angles but this is just killing gameplay so
fast. To be honest I would rather play NHL 94 any day than NHL 97.
At least '94 has control!
But as I said, new games such as Syndicate Wars (you can find the
playable demo almost anywhere online that is if you are ready to
download 27megs) are still out there. You want a good puzzle game?...
try "Get Lost!". You want a great fighting game?... try Virtua
Fighter for the PC. Games such as Big Red Racing and the new Rocket
Jockey all are well developed games. Then there's Earthworm Jim 1 & 2
as well as GEX, which are all PC conversions and quite well done.
Lemmings 3D and Lemmings Pinball are out there too and worth trying.
So there are still great games out there. And then of course you
still have the classics. I mean what's wrong with playing Commander
Keen clones even if they didn't come out yesterday?
You might want to take a look at these sites:
http://happypuppy.com/
http://happypuppy.com/games/lordsoth/index.html
http://www.gamesdomain.co.uk/
Dave Taylor
Good Q. I'd offer a few reasons on the violence part. One, publishers
want violence. There's plenty of precedent of violent games that sell.
Two, developers tend to be young males, pumped with testosterone.
Three, Hollywood proved long ago that violence and sex sells.
As for "good," that's a tough question. I guess I find this the more
interesting issue. Making a good game isn't the sort of thing you can
do in exactly 1.2 years, and its lack of schedulability pisses off
publishers, because game development costs are basically salaries,
therefore time literally equals money.
Most developers are taking advances from publishers to fund the current
game under development. In this scenario, your "sugar daddy" is your
publisher, and if the publisher wants you to hurry up, and they always
do, then you hurry up, and gameplay-be-damned. Hey, they're footing the
bill. They make the rules.
I'd like to think we're developing "good" titles, and we're still
self-funded and internally owned. It's a good setup for us, and I've no
doubt it will pay off later as it has before, but I admit it is
nerve-wracking blowing your own $1M on a game instead of someone
else's. I do not blame game companies one whit for using other people's
money to develop. It is a weird, non-intuitive marketplace out there.
=-ddt->
Victor Putz
nd to throw in a new entry for "fun, playable games", my Win95
remix of Flynn Sprint is actually starting to take final form. The
DOS version was pretty terrible, but the Win95 version looks nice,
moves well, and is a lot of fun as a platformer, even if there isn't
a lot of earthshaking new ground being covered; looking at about a
late-Jan-to-mid-Feb release.
Arjan, good to see that Jazz2 is coming along well; the screen shots
look great (wish I had your budget!). Not sure how much the
multiplayer (network-type) will add, but I'll definately check it out.
As for good games, I am totally won over by Tomb Raider. It's clever,
beautiful, has good elements of thought and puzzle-solving, and except
for a bit of tedious "jump puzzles" is more fun than many other games
I've looked at recently (it's basically Prince of Persia in 3d). I
haven't tried it, but Master of Orion 2 is looking better and better
as well (got it for Xmas, but Tomb Raider is sucking my time; should be
done in about 2 more days, though).
...but violence and 3d games are where the money is, and this is turning
into a Business instead of an art form. With corporations vomiting
money into productions, it's tough to compete-- or even just to release
a "non-industry" product. Even the conferences are getting ridiculous
(I probably won't make it to CGDC this year on account of its exorbitant
price).
Sigh-- won't give up the day job yet.
-->VPutz
Jesse Johnson
Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Yeah, why are all the new games either full of 3D graphic violence,
>or educational (i.e. not fun). What happened to games like Xargon
>and Commander Keen etc. ??? Why don't people make stuff like that
>anymore ???
I'm sorry if this is off topic, but do you think that because of this
there's more of a market for logic/strategy games? The only examples
of this I can think of is The Incredible Machine by Sierra. I'm
considering making a game similar, except less cute and less
complicated. Do you think this sort of thing could do well,
considering it's less exciting than most games, and of course will
have less fancy graphics?
Jesse Johnson
je...@empireone.net
P.S. Please send replies by e-mail as well, because I useually don't
have time to read through this whole news group.
epi...@cc.curtin.edu.au
In Article <32C4D2...@crack.com>
Dave Taylor <d...@crack.com> writes:
>
>I'd like to think we're developing "good" titles, and we're still
>self-funded and internally owned. It's a good setup for us, and I've no
>doubt it will pay off later as it has before, but I admit it is
>nerve-wracking blowing your own $1M on a game instead of someone
>else's. I do not blame game companies one whit for using other people's
>money to develop. It is a weird, non-intuitive marketplace out there.
>
(firstly thats a rediculous amount of money), the cause of which is no
doubt globs of full-motion-video and gloss and no substance..
. and its obvious that there is often not enough creative thought put into
how to make a really fun game first, and add all the gloss later on.
Take Dune 2/C&C/Red Alert.. they're all innovative and well thought out,
the video is icing on the cake, wheras a title like Phantasmorgia(whatever)
that is *based around* a bunch of clips, gets boring real fast.
mst...@aol.com
In article <5af4pg$m...@alpha8.curtin.edu.au>, epi...@cc.curtin.edu.au
writes:
>
>Can anyone explain how Microsoft spent $4M on a game only to shelve it
>
Politics :-) A tried and true method of asserting superiority and
pre-eminence in highly political environments is for a brand new manager
to cancel his predecesor's project. The more the project cost, the more
the new manager can claim the previous manager was bad for the company.
I've been involved in several such cancelations (although nowhere near $4M
:-) of _finished_ products, ready to ship, which were cancelled when the
management team left and us programmers were left holding the bag.
Mike :-)
Tony Stuckey
to...@direct.ca writes:
>And no I am not trying to sell anybody on Bullfrog, all I am trying to
>say is that [I think] violence is needed in games. The problem is that
>a lot of game companies focus the entire game on simply blood and gore
>and just great looks. You have to keep in mind gameplay and strategy.
Please explain the popularity of Myst.
It is complete crap to say that violence is needed.
Joe
Although it could well be true that the popularity of myst had more
to do with 'wow, geewizisms' than anything else. Once the wow,
geewizisms
are over and done with, will games like myst still be popular?
But in any case, I don't disagree with your sentiment. There are plenty
of non-violent games out there. This is splitting hairs, I think, but
I'm not even sure that wargames are violent...
Joe.
Benjamin Burack
Tony Stuckey wrote:
>
> to...@direct.ca writes:
> >And no I am not trying to sell anybody on Bullfrog, all I am trying to
> >say is that [I think] violence is needed in games. The problem is that
> >a lot of game companies focus the entire game on simply blood and gore
> >and just great looks. You have to keep in mind gameplay and strategy.
>
> Please explain the popularity of Myst.
>
> It is complete crap to say that violence is needed.
I agree. Violence is certainly not needed in games. In fighting games
like Doom, it really helps to have violence. And in strategy games
violence (within reason) can often add a little, and even in some
adventure games, violence can be a useful tool. But is it NEEDED! No
way. Good gameplay and design is what is need. Violence is just one
ingredient out of many that can be added to a game.
Javier Arevalo
Joe <jkr...@bbn.com> wrote:
>But in any case, I don't disagree with your sentiment. There are plenty
>of non-violent games out there. This is splitting hairs, I think, but
>I'm not even sure that wargames are violent...
I find some events in Command & Conquer much more violent (and vivid!)
than most Doom/Quake gore fests. Sending out a patrol on a distraction
suicide mission gets my stomach much more worried than all the ketchup
available in gore (thou I love that too).
Tomato sauce != blood. :)
Javier Arevalo
Arvirago Entertainment
(but my opinions are mine)
Robert Mobbs
In article <5ajak6$1cd$4...@diana.ibernet.es>, ja...@jet.es says...
>
>Joe <jkr...@bbn.com> wrote:
>
>>But in any case, I don't disagree with your sentiment. There are plenty
>>of non-violent games out there. This is splitting hairs, I think, but
>>I'm not even sure that wargames are violent...
>
>I find some events in Command & Conquer much more violent (and vivid!)
>than most Doom/Quake gore fests. Sending out a patrol on a distraction
>suicide mission gets my stomach much more worried than all the ketchup
>available in gore (thou I love that too).
Well, after playing CC: Red Alert a little more, I have to say
I'm not pleased. I loved Dune II, and Command and Conquer was fun. But
it seems like what they said for Red Alert was: "Let's make this game so
hopelessly difficult that it's no longer fun." I mean, it requires about
the same level of strategy, but the bases you have to destroy are almost
hopelessly big in Red Alert, and you always have less technology than
your oponent. The cool thing about Dune II was that the missions were
difficult, but relatively achievable. In Red Alert, six hours into a
game I find myself saying "How much longer do I have to do this to get
to the next one?" Usually the answer is ten to twelve hours of sending
out men to get slaughtered just to destroy maybe one building (another
thing I don't like is that the computer just cranks out men and machines,
while you're producing them at a snail's pace).
Maybe I'm just a big wussy, but I don't like it as much as I
liked its predecessors.
Robert Mobbs
- the opinions expressed herein are those of the author,
and not of Microsoft corporation