quote: Original post by MSW
Mmm...maybe there are multiple "groups" of hardcore gamers?..Like maybe a "underground hardcore gamer" crowd?..I mean to myself and many of the "hardcore" gamers that I know...the Japanise game developer Treasure holds just as much "status" as id software does to the more "mainstream" hardcore gamers...or maybe this is considered "old school" gamers?

Yeah probably as many different "groups" as there are games. I guess hardcore is probably not the term I should have used. I remember reading on Dexterity.com that there are hardcore gamers who only play shareware puzzle games.

Treasure made Gunstar Heroes! That puts them up there in my book.

It''s easier to design a complex game than a simple game. It''s along the lines of the quote:

I am sorry for the length of my letter, but I had not the time to write a short one.

-- Blaise Pascal (and Mark Twain)

Now, it''s tougher to implement a complex game... but much easier to design. For the most part I''m unimpressed with the industry''s ability to design games.

Anyhow, I''ll give examples of simple games that have made it out within the last few years on the consoles:

Super Mokey Ball
Wave Race
Dukes of Hazzard
Dance Dance Revolution

quote: And if gamers didn''t want realism, then "realistic" games wouldn''t sell so well. They do, so they make them.

I think that the state of games is about the same as movies and music. Mostly crap is churned out--more so than at any other point in history. It''s many different flavors of the same things, but with lots more flash and much less substance; consider how much money is just made on expansion packs. People buy games for one of the same reasons that they go to see crappy movies: it''s something to do, and something they''ve always done, so why change? Most people aren''t inclined or sufficiently observant to analyze the quality of what they consume; as these ignorant people are the bulk of the buying public, that''s how companies can get away with producing such trash. To some degree, it''s a chicken-and-egg question, but I think that companies began to realize that they could make more money with flashy nonsense than actually developing a truly polished, and well-designed game. Most people are drawn to a game that looks pretty, so they buy it. Even lacking good gameplay, design, and story, that''s the standard today, so nobody really notices what''s missing. It''s all the same basic phenomenon as why great films are often commercial failures.

Beyond all this, what people call "video games" these days are, in fact, "simulations"--and will eventually be holodeck programs. Video games stopped being made quite some time ago, right about when 3D fever took over.

Eventually, only we old farts will care about the likes of Galaga, Pac-Man, Super Mario Bros. 3, Secret of Mana, Akumajou Dracula X: Chi no rondo, etc. Such things will be regarded as too primitive to deserve a look. Oh, wait...that''s how things are now...

How much time would you truly spend playing a simple game? Almost certainly not 200+ hours like you might want to play something like Neverwinter Nights. Not to say there is something wrong with simple games but when deciding what to spend you hard earned $$$ on you try to go for a game that you will get quality time out of. Obviously this only applies to commercial games, if you don''t care so much about making money then it doesn''t matter. Besides, designing a complex game is sooo much more fun than a simple game because designing a simple game that is truly good is way too much like maths

I think it might be a good idea to define simple and complex before people start yelling at each other only because they have different views of what is simple and what is complex. For example is Doom simple or complex, game wise. The rules are simple enough, collect guns/ammo/life, kill monsters, find keys, don''t get killed. Not any more complex than most arcade games. Are arcade games complex though or are they all simple? Are only puzzle games and similarly abstract games simple? I think we all agree that Tetris is a simple game and that modern RTSs/RPGs are complex games, but where do you draw the line?

I have to agree with that anonymous poster, one of the reasons complex games are developed is that developing a simple game is HARD!!! Sure, it''s not hard to come up with some grand concept, then build and build and build on it until you have some colossal game, as some people do. Try just making something simple, and implementing it. Another good example of this that comes to mind is Kobo, by Akira Haguchi (I think). Simple concept, 50 levels, great gameplay. Then, people go and work the concept to make a really nice looking game with the same, basic gameplay.

-ReKleSS

I am a child of chaos. I like games with simple rules and complex consequences (shame, I suck at chess ).

When you can do a lot with a few buttons (Tekken) and the combinations have an elegance to them, you get complex gameplay with an easy to learn interface.

I loved the way Banjo Kazooie started you with a few moves then added more to the same handful of buttons time and time again. I don''t know how they did it but every new sequence made perfect sense, as if it could only rightly be that combination.

It works given the context of moves already learned, the process takes advantage of the overlapping nature of learning. NB Tekken and Banjo Kazooie are both console games, the moves are chosen with the ergonomics of the controller in mind. IT ISN''T BECAUSE CONSOLE GAMES ARE INHERENTLY SIMPLE. This is a case where the modular flexibility of the PC falls flat on it''s arse.

one last point. there is a snob appeal in making a complex game, and a macho appeal in playing it.

********


A Problem Worthy of Attack
Proves It''s Worth by Fighting Back

You know what I miss? The golden era when gamers weren''t being sold "mega l33t texvoxal-shaded bio-trinear lighting parametric texture mapped 3d engeinz!!11!!!" but games.

I don''t know why, but there''s this feeling I get with games. I just can''t stand a 3D game. Why? I dunno. I just love sprite-based games. Maybe it''s because I feel 3D is taking too much of an importance, that we can never really go back now, and that way too much effort is getting put on making a mega-realistic 3D eye-orgasm.

There was a time when gamers were satisfied with sprites. There were many, many great games out there: Final Fantasy I-VI, Contra (well, Contra I was a heck of a classic; III was so-so ), Tetris, the Megaman series... I''m sure just about everyone has played one of these. If not, you''ve missed out on some of the greatest classic videogames ever. Now, were these games 3D? Not really, unless you consider the fact some of them had backgrounds that gave the impression of death as "3D".

Gamers have gotten picky since then. Ask yourselves this: two new games are out. One of them''s a nice little 2D RPG. The story is spectacular, the character development is awsome, overall the game could easily be considered THE best RPG in existance. The other''s an FPS. Mega-realistic graphics engine. The visuals are outright astounding. It isn''t any different from all other FPSes, as a matter of fact it''s pretty much a Doom clone. But the graphics are so outright eye-orgasmic that you can easily get lost in the game for hours without realizing you''re actually playing a game.

Which will sell most?

If you''ve answered "the masterpiece of an RPG", you''re living in a dream world.
If you''ve answered "the mega-realistic FPS with no originality or story", chances are you''re not only right, but that the RPG will probably only sell a few dozen copies while the FPS will easily sell in the millions.

Why?

Let''s face it. Today''s gamers are either veterans whom went with the flow of things or 13-year olds whom never saw sprites before. Their reactions will be "Dude, this looks old. Heh, I think I''ll save my money for that FPS instead.". Or in the case of the AOL-using Counterstrike-playing teen, "omfg wtf lololololol 2d wtf r tehy thinkeaing rooofles!!1111!!!!! no weay ill get teh FPS it R0X0rz!!!!11111 ^_______^" ;P

I wish we could go back, but there''s no stopping what we call "progress". Simple games don''t really sell anymore. Gamers are picky, very picky. It''s just not the same than before.

And sorry for the long rant. ^^;

quote: Original post by RuneLancer
But the graphics are so outright eye-orgasmic that you can easily get lost in the game for hours without realizing you''re actually playing a game.

That doesn''t sound so bad.

quote: Original post by RuneLancer
You know what I miss? The golden era when gamers weren''t being sold "mega l33t texvoxal-shaded bio-trinear lighting parametric texture mapped 3d engeinz!!11!!!" but games.

Well do you remember: "digitized rotoscoped ray-traced Mode7 SuperFX 16 million colors" games? Those were also hyped graphics technologies in the so-called "golden era". That really hasn''t changed. 2D games were about advancing graphics too.

quote: Ask yourselves this: two new games are out. One of them''s a nice little 2D RPG. The story is spectacular, the character development is awsome, overall the game could easily be considered THE best RPG in existance. The other''s an FPS. Mega-realistic graphics engine.

You are making the mistake that most people make when thinking about 3d, that all 3d games are FPSs (and maybe racing/flying/sports sims). These days 3d is useful for a lot more than FPS games. Neverwinter Nights is one of the best action-orientated RPGs ever and Morrowind is great for a more freeform RPG experience. Warcraft3 and Age of Mythology are both great RTSs.

3d does no longer have to equate to pretty graphics, no gameplay because practically any game can be made in 3d now. In fact, I would argue that (except in a few cases) 2d no longer offers anything over 3d (except perhaps that its easier to do). For a long time 3d graphics were blocky while 2d graphics were smooth but if you look at AoM compared to AoE:AoK the graphics look just as smooth and detailed but in 3d!

If you don''t like 3d games much then I have to ask what kind of 3d card you have because frankly while I was using a TNT2 I wasn''t much sold on 3d either but with a gForce4Ti things do look a lot better and 3d games look just as sharp as 2d.

I have to ask, why make a game 2d when you can make it 3d? For me 3d greatly increases the immersiveness of a game because it seems like the game world truly exists behind the monitor screen and is not just a pretty picture drawn there.