|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 22, 2007 12:05:19 GMT -5
I agree. The new ideas are pretty good. I would like to see supply and morale modeled as well. However, as Alexei said, if people want old stuff, then they will get old stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 22, 2007 13:08:35 GMT -5
its not that people want recycled crap, its that for some reason it still sells. I think people would prefer new stuff like what I mentioned, but will still buy the old junk, so companies would rather not spend money developing new things and just do whatever they did before 10 times more.
and that is why it'll be same shit, different decade, until developers stop being lazy and make their games as something they're proud of that lots of people will enjoy, instead of cheaper copies that'll still sell but really won't be much beyond last year's game.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 22, 2007 20:28:21 GMT -5
Not necesserily JP. There are actually a lot of games out there already that kind of depart from the regular RTS model, but for one reason or another its the consumers who dont buy the game.
Total Annihalation is one of the few games that went beyond the normal bounds of RTS and yet also set a benchmark for RTS's, and while successful (It was a great game) I dont know if youve every played it. Or you could try its successor Supreme Commander (which Im sure youve heard of, but Ive never played). Both of these games included interesting variations of the RTS genre, and you should play them before complaining that its the developers fault.
Populous (which Jeff J and I have played) is also an interesting RTS, thats kind of different from the generic rts. Im not sure it would appeal to you, but it too is something completely different and was a successful game. If you are into space ship battles, Homeworld might be interesting because it has a completely 3D map, and an interesting combat system.
Theres also the upcoming SPORE which will introduce interesting features that involve nurturing, evolving and creating your own race. Or City building games (which include defense of your city) like Castles and Ceaser.
What Im saying is that there are plenty of good alternative RTS games out there for you to play if you want. The problem then is that the consumers enjoy playing basic RTS's, maybe because there is something enjoyable about that kind of gameplay found no where else. If you are looking for a specific kind of RTS that doesnt exist yet, and that I havent mentioned, you should go out and make it. But know that it will probably never recieve the kind of popular attention that classics like StarCraft, Warcraft or Age of Empires will recieve.
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 22, 2007 21:27:17 GMT -5
while a lot of the ones you mentioned aren't actually RTS games (not real time for starters), I have played populous, and its good, but if you look at the ones you've brought up, none of them get talked about like the Warcrafts and Command & Conquers do, because they're WAY lower budget and don't get any advertising.
Why? because the developers aren't giving them that budget and advertising. not because the game is bad. someone is less likely to buy a game that has a basic box with some relatively bad art on it and they've never heard its name. it doesn't look high-quality, so consumers assume its not, and buy the one they've heard of. casual gamers don't go looking for the games that're good but not well known, they look for games that're well known and good.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 22, 2007 23:48:47 GMT -5
first of all, every game I mentioned is real time (with the possible exception of castles) And now you are bringing up a completely different point, which is that good games dont always recieve good marketing, and that the ones which recieve good marketing and hype are usually only average at best. Its almost just like the movie business.
Anyway, my point was dont blame it on the developers, and I dont think you are, so at least we are clear there.
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 23, 2007 2:55:57 GMT -5
I remembered seeing civ in there but I guess not
anyways, I am blaming it on the developers (ie. the companies making the game) because they're letting good games get beat by inferior games simply because they don't spend the money to let people know they exist. thats no ones fault but their own. its the fault of the ones that ARE getting funding for advertising and then don't make their games anything different from what they were 10 years ago, and the fault of the companies that aren't giving funding to games that are superior.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 23, 2007 4:44:24 GMT -5
so its not the developers fault, but the company's, or more probably the marketing department's.
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 23, 2007 5:34:57 GMT -5
developers (ie. the companies making the game)
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 23, 2007 19:06:25 GMT -5
I think of the developers as the people who actually make the game. Not to mention some of those companies just dont have the budget to advertise well.
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 23, 2007 20:03:11 GMT -5
maybe thats what you think of developers as, but how many times have you heard specific names of people who worked on a game outside of the credits? all over the boxes there are company logos, and they're also flashed at the start of the game typically.
also any time you hear anything like "developed by _____" its a company name
don't have the money to advertise >> game is good but doesn't sell well >> don't make much money off the game >> don't have money to advertise >> etc. . .
its their own damn fault, if they don't start with money they need to be attracting people who will loan them money so they can sell their product. thats how things work.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 24, 2007 7:09:35 GMT -5
ok.. so just to be clear. You're blaming game companies for not marketing games enough that cater to you?
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 24, 2007 13:23:10 GMT -5
So I suggest some ideas that're kinda along the lines of some other games that never get funded but are good, and a few people say "hey that'd be interesting" and now suddenly if those games exist they only cater to me.
Knock it off ali.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 25, 2007 4:20:44 GMT -5
sorry if I misunderstood you then. I just thought you originally attacked starcraft because it didnt cater to your tastes, came up with some games youd rather play instead, and then blamed companies for not developing those games and/or marketing them to you. Next time ill try and take your criticism more constructively.
|
|
|
Post by Random on May 25, 2007 13:09:18 GMT -5
I said (many, MANY times) that starcraft is the same old shit. That is why it will suck.
Then I blamed developers for giving those "same shit different decade" games FAR more funding than actual good games that are different.
That translating into me blaming the world for not making exactly what I want is either you failing to even read what I'm saying, or attempting to mock me because you're out of ideas for disagreeing.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 25, 2007 13:58:26 GMT -5
starcraft II wooo awesome
i wish they would finish ghost though
|
|