Thread: Reviews (was RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?) (Page 2)
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-design
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-02-26 11:45:14
|
> A better example might be the aforementioned Combat Mission or CA's > Medieval: Total War. The Total War stuff has sold very, very well, > and I think it's partly because it wasn't the same resource > management RTS that everyone else has written a million times. While Total War is a fine game by itself, I believe a large amount of its sales can be attributed to its pretense of realism and "historism". There are a lot of history buffs. On our forum and our support email we get quite a lot of emails of the following two types: 1. "Your game is great! Why don't you do a historical campaign about the battles of King Umperdincus the Greenbearded and his conquest of Zashmorzonia? I have a lot of friend who are interested in the history of Zashmorzonia [read: 2] and they would all buy it!" 2. "Your game sucks! I bought it because I'm interested in Roman history, but what's with all those 'spells' and 'healing' and 'druids'? It's totally unrealistic." So I guess Total War took some part of the substantial, although not very large wargame market. > Not to belabor the point -- and without having seen your game even > once -- then I would think that the design wasn't sufficiently > different for the reviewers to retain interest. (BTW, if you have any interest in RTS games, EBGames already list it for $9.99... not exactly a plug, because, obviously, at that price nothing would come to us. And no, Jan, it's not a clickfest by any means.) There is a fine line between making your game too similar in apparent gameplay to one of the classics, and making it too different so that no reviewer gets it in the 30 or so minutes he is able to devote. As our lead designer put it after the first few reviews, "No more *different* games from me". We've seen wildly varying reviews - people who "got it" and played the game we play, and people who didnt "get it" and play a vastly different, shallow and bland game. (Of course, the blame for this sits squarely on us, not them.) For that matter, we've seen reviews which say "great multiplayer/skirmish mode, but the single-player is a totally lame, boring attempt at an RPG" AND reviews which say "great single-player missions, but the multiplayer/skirmish mode is a totally lame standard RTS". We got good scores both from people who obviously had played the game for 5 minutes (probably due to good marketing on part of our publishers), and from people who understood it; however, most of the bad scores we got were from reviewers who judged the game completely superficially (what, 2D graphics? only two races? shallow tech tree? must be bad). Maybe in the long term, it's gameplay that matters. But for good reviews in the initial period, you need not only glitzy technology, but also very accessible gameplay. No one cares if two of your advanced units form a very interesting symbiotic combination in the endspiel, or if there's a great scripted sequence after the incredibly difficult mission 8. The game must be obviously good, not just good. |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-02-26 20:40:46
|
>While Total War is a fine game by itself, I believe a large= amount >of its sales can be attributed to its pretense of realism and >"historism". I don't think that's the case, because, honestly, there aren't= enough history buffs to really make it a top 10 game, and it was in the= top 10 for several weeks. The realism factor -- large unit movement -- and lack of resource= management I think greatly contributed to its fun. Also note= that its graphics weren't particularly anything to write home about. >So I guess Total War took some part of the substantial, although= not >very large wargame market. It's still real-time. I think Jan and myself think of "Wargames"= as more like the turn-based stuff of yore, such as Panzer General= and Wargame Construction Set and the stuff that Battlefront sells. >There is a fine line between making your game too similar in >apparent gameplay to one of the classics, and making it too >different so that no reviewer gets it in the 30 or so minutes he= is >able to devote. I completely agree. Having come from the first-person shooting genre, I witnessed this first hand with the migration from Quake= to Quake 2. ANY change that was entertained was derided by half the= market as "not being true to our roots", but any LACK of change= was perceived as "same old stuff, unoriginal". It's a tough line to= balance. Which is why sometimes you have to come out with something SO different that people have to dump much of their preconceived notions. I think Homeworld and Thief captured this very well. Homeworld felt like an RTS, but the extra dimension changed= things so much that you couldn't think in terms of 2D bases/units anymore. Thief felt like a first-person shooter, and a lot of people still= reviewed it as such, but it obviously was not, and enjoyed a lot= of success for being so different (and still good). >As our lead designer put it after the first few reviews, "No= more >*different* games from me". I think there's an area where you can be so different that people= don't "get it", but yet still similar enough that people have= certain expectations that may not be met. It's what helicopter pilots= call the dead man's curve. There's a zone where if you lose your= engine you must be high enough to allow for autotation to safety, or low= enough that you can survive the crash, but if you're in between,= you're pretty much dead. >different, shallow and bland game. (Of course, the blame for= this >sits squarely on us, not them.) I think that's a really positive attitude to have, because it= gives you room to grow in the future. I've seen too many game= designers that blame the players for not enjoying their game. Trust me,= it's tempting to do when I get e-mails from people that disliked Candy= Cruncher =3D) >reviewers who judged the game completely superficially (what,= 2D >graphics? only two races? shallow tech tree? must be bad). Unfortunately the nature of the Internet is such that anyone can= have an opinion. I know of at least one reviewer who has bragged to= me that for "shitty games" he doesn't even bother opening the box,= he just sells it on eBay. And this is from one of the more= respected sites *sigh* >Maybe in the long term, it's gameplay that matters. But for= good >reviews in the initial period, you need not only glitzy= technology, >but also very accessible gameplay. Yes. As the player base matures and broadens we're seeing accessibility becoming more and more important. I remember= trying to show a friend how to play Quake, and often we forget how= incredibly difficult mouselook was to learn when first playing. I'm happy to see the trend towards integrated tutorials, etc. so= that you can learn without reading a manual. >No one cares if two of your >advanced units form a very interesting symbiotic combination in= the >endspiel, or if there's a great scripted sequence after the >incredibly difficult mission 8. The game must be obviously good,= not >just good. Also a very good point. I had a friend comment once that "You= need to show your best stuff FIRST", because that's what captures the= imagination of the player immediately. It's tempting to save the= best for last to provide a final sense of "wow!" when they= complete the game, but two hard facts make this a bad idea: 1. The demo is often the first few levels, so if they're boring= the game will be perceived as boring. I'm amazed how many times I've= downloaded a demo and it ends up being the tutorial with no indication of the actual gameplay. 2. Very few players actually complete games, so you really want= to front load as much content as possible. Brian |
|
From: Stefan M. <me...@sk...> - 2003-02-27 07:16:20
|
Hi, > It's still real-time. I think Jan and myself think of "Wargames" as > more like the turn-based stuff of yore, such as Panzer General and > Wargame Construction Set and the stuff that Battlefront sells. I had some talks about turn-based games or not. I've been working on "Incubation" some years ago and I absolutely liked the turn based aspect of the game. There seems to be a fan base out there who *wants* those kind of turn based games but every time I talked about it to some publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No one wants to play that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real time !" > imagination of the player immediately. It's tempting to save the > best for last to provide a final sense of "wow!" when they complete > the game, but two hard facts make this a bad idea: > > 1. The demo is often the first few levels, so if they're boring the > 2. Very few players actually complete games, so you really want to hmmm... what about the "rewarding" factor in the game. It has been a long time paradigm to reward players with better graphics, more demanding enemies and improved items to keep him playing. IIRC our marketing departement told us (back then) that "Game, Net & Match", one of the first real time 3D tennis games with internet play, sold less because reviewers wrote that there weren't any trophies displayed. The graphics were top-notch then but it didn't seem to be enough. Kind regards, Stefan |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-02-27 07:59:29
|
>it to some publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No= one >wants to play that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real= time >!" And this is largely what publishers said to Chris Sawyer when he= was shopping around RC Tycoon. Specifically, they were deriding the= fact that it had no competitive aspect, lots of little people, and no= blood or violence. They felt such a game simply wasn't= relevant. So there are always opportunities when the big publishers simply= refuse to believe that some market segments exist. >hmmm... what about the "rewarding" factor in the game. It has= been a >long time paradigm to reward players with better graphics, more >demanding enemies and improved items to keep him playing. That's not rewarding as much as it is simply providing= progressively greater challenges. Obviously you want to do that, but at the= same time you don't want to save your best stuff for the few players= that find it by finishing a game. Basically, first impressions count. Brian |
|
From: Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...> - 2003-02-27 09:00:35
|
Brian Hook wrote:
>> it to some publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No one
>> wants to play that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real time
>> !"
>
> And this is largely what publishers said to Chris Sawyer when he was
> shopping around RC Tycoon. Specifically, they were deriding the fact
> that it had no competitive aspect, lots of little people, and no
> blood or violence. They felt such a game simply wasn't relevant.
>
> So there are always opportunities when the big publishers simply
> refuse to believe that some market segments exist.
Or simply considering the monthly cash spended to keep a big publisher alive
it's not viable for them to even try to publish something for these market
segments ?
>> hmmm... what about the "rewarding" factor in the game. It has been a
>> long time paradigm to reward players with better graphics, more
>> demanding enemies and improved items to keep him playing.
>
> That's not rewarding as much as it is simply providing progressively
> greater challenges. Obviously you want to do that, but at the same
> time you don't want to save your best stuff for the few players that
> find it by finishing a game.
>
> Basically, first impressions count.
On the Atari ST I had a game (forget the name) that had a nice way to keep
you motivated to continue the game. Instead of having an endless number of
levels, it proposed "rounds" in "leagues". The end result is exactly the
same, but you know that you had to finish a serie of 5 rounds to end the
current league and move to the next one. Each end of league displayed a
small screen with statistics and comments about your performance and also
some fun animation around that, a little bit like in Bomberman when you see
your character wininng with all other behind him in very bad shape.
Every each "leagues" you had a specific screen telling you how good you
were...
This way you still get the impression you had something new to discover, and
it makes the game more interesting.
Mickael Pointier
|
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-02-27 09:13:11
|
>Or simply considering the monthly cash spended to keep a big >publisher alive it's not viable for them to even try to publish >something for these market segments ? That too, although I'm fairly confident most publishers would be= very happy to have RC Tycoon's revenue stream =3D) Brian |
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2003-02-27 08:00:31
|
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Stefan Maton wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> It's still real-time. I think Jan and myself think of "Wargames" as
>> more like the turn-based stuff of yore, such as Panzer General and
>> Wargame Construction Set and the stuff that Battlefront sells.
>
>I had some talks about turn-based games or not. I've been working on
>"Incubation" some years ago and I absolutely liked the turn based aspect
>of the game. There seems to be a fan base out there who *wants* those
>kind of turn based games but every time I talked about it to some
>publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No one wants to play
>that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real time !"
Well, I think it depends in the target audience. If you aim for the more
hardcore staretegy gamers you would be better off using turnbased, as that
allows the players to focus on strategies, check unit stats, view terrain
in detail and other things that an RTS game just doesn't have the time
for. On the other hand, if the target audience is the casual gamer that
plays RTS games and does not bother with the strategic content, then
you're better off going RTS.
There are variations on turnbased gaming too:
1. the traditional turnbased. When it's your turn to move you click a
unit, move it as much as you want, see what it managed to do, get the next
unit, repeat. Typical game here is Civilization, Steel Panthers.
2. turnbased with action phase. During an orders phase you give orders to
your units, but they don't actually do anything yet. All action is
resolved during an action phase where the units move and all action takes
place. This seems to be very liked for more tactical wargames, as it is
more "fair". You can't use a single fast moving unit as a scout into
unknown territory and let it find all enemies, then follow up with the
"heavies" once you know the locations of the enemies. A good example here
is Combat Mission.
I myself prefer the latter category.
--
"Bingeley bingeley beep!"
-- The Personal Disorganizer, Terry Pratchett in Feet of Clay
|
|
From: Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...> - 2003-02-27 09:15:17
|
>>> It's still real-time. I think Jan and myself think of "Wargames" as
>>> more like the turn-based stuff of yore, such as Panzer General and
>>> Wargame Construction Set and the stuff that Battlefront sells.
>>
>> I had some talks about turn-based games or not. I've been working on
>> "Incubation" some years ago and I absolutely liked the turn based
>> aspect of the game. There seems to be a fan base out there who
>> *wants* those kind of turn based games but every time I talked about
>> it to some publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No one
>> wants to play that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real time
>> !"
>
> Well, I think it depends in the target audience. If you aim for the
> more hardcore staretegy gamers you would be better off using
> turnbased, as that allows the players to focus on strategies, check
> unit stats, view terrain in detail and other things that an RTS game
> just doesn't have the time for. On the other hand, if the target
> audience is the casual gamer that plays RTS games and does not bother
> with the strategic content, then you're better off going RTS.
Actually, there are some multiplayer turn based games that sold very well,
and was quite entertaining: think about "Heroes of Might and Magic" by 3DO.
> There are variations on turnbased gaming too:
>
> 1. the traditional turnbased. When it's your turn to move you click a
> unit, move it as much as you want, see what it managed to do, get the
> next unit, repeat. Typical game here is Civilization, Steel Panthers.
>
> 2. turnbased with action phase. During an orders phase you give
> orders to your units, but they don't actually do anything yet. All
> action is resolved during an action phase where the units move and
> all action takes place. This seems to be very liked for more tactical
> wargames, as it is more "fair". You can't use a single fast moving
> unit as a scout into unknown territory and let it find all enemies,
> then follow up with the "heavies" once you know the locations of the
> enemies. A good example here is Combat Mission.
>
> I myself prefer the latter category.
There is also the "time limited" turn based game system. I think SquareSoft
used it on some FinalFantasy games. A lot of Japanese RPG games are real
time during the adventure, and switch to turn based systems for the fight
resolution.
Also Bioware RPG can be switched between real time and "paused" mode. This
system is quite nice, because it allows you to fastly wippe out small
opposition, while still giving you the opportunity to pause the game to
develop a better strategy in front of strong opponents.
This led to the point that the real important fact is not if you should be
real time or not, but if your are using not real time efficiently. The
advantage of turn based systems is that you have all the cpu time free to:
1) Display awesome animations and effects (eg: Japanese RPG fights in
general where the animations are done in a way to maximize the visual
results by knowing in advance who will be hit or not in the action)
2) Allow the player to perform very complex actions (eg: Merging/Splitting
armies, exchanging magic items in HOM&M, consult your counsellors for the
best strategy to adopt in Civilization)
3) Perform some heavy path-finding computation instead of using cheap bugged
real time path-finding, or give the IA opponent a real smartness with
evaluation of conflicts zones, sensibles areas, evaluation of forces on the
map, and so on.
If a turn based game could have been done in real time without sacrifying
anything in the gameplay, IMO it's a bad game.
Mickael Pointier
|
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-02-27 09:43:43
|
> Also Bioware RPG can be switched between real time and > "paused" mode. Actually, some people wrote us to say they actually play Celtic Kings in that mode :-) because the Pause is implemented in a way that allows you to give orders while paused. We hadn't seen it coming, it was definitely "emergent game abuse" :-) |
|
From: Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...> - 2003-02-27 09:51:30
|
Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote:
>> Also Bioware RPG can be switched between real time and
>> "paused" mode.
>
> Actually, some people wrote us to say they actually play
> Celtic Kings in that mode :-) because the Pause is implemented in a
> way that allows you to give orders while paused. We hadn't seen
> it coming, it was definitely "emergent game abuse" :-)
Personaly I like this kind of feature :)
It could also be something like a "speed bar" that you could move back and
forth, to play "a la" matrix :)
When you want to move from a point A to a point B fastly, put the cursor on
"fast", in fight reduce to "normal", and when it become hard, switch to
"slow"...
IIRC, "HExplore" (an old Diablo like game in voxel) had a similar system.
Mickael Pointier
|
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-02-27 10:19:38
|
> > Actually, some people wrote us to say they actually play Celtic Kings > > in that mode :-) because the Pause is implemented in a way that allows > > you to give orders while paused. We hadn't seen it coming, it was > > definitely "emergent game abuse" :-) > > Personaly I like this kind of feature :) > > It could also be something like a "speed bar" that you could > move back and forth, to play "a la" matrix :) When you want > to move from a point A to a point B fastly, put the cursor on > "fast", in fight reduce to "normal", and when it become hard, > switch to "slow"... Well, actually it's exactly like that, with zero speed being Pause. It's common for LAN games to bump up the speed during the initial development phase, and then lower it back to normal when battles start. The need for this, of course, is a sign of problems with tuning the design :-) |
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2003-02-26 11:21:04
|
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote:
>> >Actually, I think there is one genre where one person could
>> do a great game: strategy games.
>
>One advice from the trenches: if you start out doing a strategy game,
>make sure it doesn't hit the market right between the then-current
>iterations of BlizzardCraft and Age Of Ensembles. :-)
Heh, if I actually created a strategy game the average RTS gamer would
have a far too short attention span to play it. Strategy games are not RTS
games, it's very unfortunate that the whole genre of strategy games has
nowadays been associated with this (imho) stupid little sector.
Personally I'd like to one day see the old "Laser Squad" ported to Linux,
or just about any of the old (1980:s) SSI games. Ah, those were strategy
games...
--
Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs.
-- Susan Sto Helit, in Hogfather (Terry Pratchett)
|
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X