The games of 2005

[DrSpike]

Forever is about right.

[thinkingamer]

[SIZE=1]
Civ4 [/b] - ONLY IF IT IS BETTER THAN CIV3 WAS

I would say ONLY IF IT IS GOOD AS CIV 2 or SMAC. And yes, I am one of those guys who compleately abandoned civ games because of Civ 3, and I don't regreat it at all.

[Bkeela]

It was hard to go back to the dull 2d map of Civ 3 after the 3d innovations that Alpha Centauri introduced. I would prefer them work on Alpha Centauri II before another Civ game.

[Adagio]

I never saw the interesting part of the SMAC map...

[Gangerolf]

Battlefield 2

[child of Thor]

@ADG
it was a kind of psuedo-3D - it had a 'height above sea level' stat, certain things worked better closer to the sun etc, and apart from the redness which some people didnt like, it was a technical/gameplay improvement over the flat Civ2 landscape, although i didnt really like the colour either.......

Lords of Magic had a simular isometric view to SMACs, although no 'height' statistic - it just looked the same.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by child of Thor
@ADG
it was a kind of psuedo-3D - it had a 'height above sea level' stat, certain things worked better closer to the sun etc, and apart from the redness which some people didnt like, it was a technical/gameplay improvement over the flat Civ2 landscape, although i didnt really like the colour either.......

I did like the effect it had on some improvements, and IIRC you could (if everybody voted for it) raise/lower sea-level with some hightech stuff...

What I didn't like was the graphics... the pseudo-3D didn't look any better than what it would have looked in 2D... maybe if the overall graphics in the game was better I would have liked it better... who knows...

[Pave]

Boyz don't cry
Operaton Flashpoint 2
Civ4 (if it comes)
Gary Grigsby's World at War

[DarkCloud]

Alpha Centauri should have taught the world that you don't need 3D to have good graphics.

Civ IV, hopefully, will not waste resources on 3D and graphics to a detriment of playability- though considering what "the market" likes, I fear that willbe the case

I'm frankly not looking forward to many games. I'm pretty satisfied with the ones I have.

All I wish is that bioware/black isle would have made a Baldur's Gate type game that could be modded with top-down adventures and ability to create dialogue trees (sort of like a simplified version of neverwinter nights) because my 3D card won't play NWN- and I hate 3D.

Games today aren't focused on game- they're focused on presentation.

The newest game I own is from 2002- Icewind Dale II- the last great top-down RPG. and the last RTS I own is from 2001- Kohan.

*sigh*

[DrSpike]

I empathise with your views, but there are still good games. Perhaps it's you that has changed.

[thinkingamer]

Alpha Centauri should have taught the world that you don't need 3D to have good graphics.[

True. But then, who plays civ games and smac for its graphics?

Civ IV, hopefully, will not waste resources on 3D and graphics to a detriment of playability- though considering what "the market" likes, I fear that willbe the case

Agreed.

Games today aren't focused on game- they're focused on presentation.

And this is the greatest reason that makes todays pc games "not so interesting". Nowdays, you either play a mmo game or fps game or be stuck with old school stuff.

The newest game I own is from 2002- Icewind Dale II- the last great top-down RPG. and the last RTS I own is from 2001- Kohan.

Icewind dale series is a trully a marvelous game; in fact i would rate IWD1 higher than Baldur's Gate 2 if it had 2.5 D&D rules (sub classes/kit). IWD is a straightforward rpg - the main reason that BG players rate it lower than BG. (BG is a "near-perfect-real-time-world-rpg" and since you can interact with the people in this "world" BG has more stuff to do: usually solving non-main quest problems such as finding items for someone else, save a troubled village, more NPC interaction, etc.) Icewind Dale lacks the non-linear "adventures" BG has, but it does have a deep story; in Ch 3 you can feel the pain and the sorrow of the elves and its deep story behind it, for example. And the battles (specially in the heart of fury mode) it really requires some deep strategies at times. I recall when i tried to figure out how to kill the Summoner with a thief w/o interrupting the main force in ch 2 level 4.

Oh and about Kohan, never tried the game but i tried the demo; clearly the most balanced rts you can play. Someday i will play it.

[DarkCloud]

doublepost.
---

Oh and about Kohan, never tried the game but i tried the demo; clearly the most balanced rts you can play. Someday i will play it.

You won't regret it!

[DarkCloud]

DrSpike

I empathise with your views, but there are still good games. Perhaps it's you that has changed.

Maybe you're right to a point. I don't have as much time for games as I once did. But I still enjoy the same type of games: TBS, RPG, RTS, in that order. IT's just that they aren't making them in the same style that they once did.

For example, I don't really like the new 'free-form' RPG's. And 3D games like NWN look bad. (regardless of the fact that I can't play them on my computer) And 3D games such as Dungeon Seige (which I played for about 30 minutes) seem vapid.

Now, I'll admit that Fable for the Xbox ran well, and was interesting, but I couldn't stand its free-from uqests and if I didn't have a friend giving me running commentary on what to do, I may never have gotten out of the endless prologue.

As for today's RTS's, I don't have time to learn complicated formulae on what beats what and when to build what when unless there's an acutal good tutorial. I have yet to defeat more than 3 levels on any RTS (save Kohan- and amazinly I did it at HARD difficulty level!) without access to a strategy guide... and without following its directions to the T.

And frankly, Warcraft III's graphics look terrible.

I will admit though, that Empire Earth's semi-3D is acceptable.

In ye olde days, Command and Conquer: Red Alert's story was engaging and moving and gave hints to the player as to what could be done to improve his units. (alhtough I have yet to win any scenarios beyond the first 3-5 story ones on the Red and allied sides. The ai is simply too good.) And Age of Empire's scenario editor made playing that game fun! Without that editor, I would have hated RTSes.

As for TBSes... Alpha Centauri was good- though far too dark for me to focus on it for more than 2 hours at a time... and I never figured out its cryptic scenario editor. (That's my favorite things with games- scenario editors)
And Civ III... it seemed like a downgrade from Civ II... the last TBS that I liked was Europa Universalis. *Sigh* Sadness

Thinkinggamer

Icewind dale series is a trully a marvelous game; in fact i would rate IWD1 higher than Baldur's Gate 2 if it had 2.5 D&D rules (sub classes/kit). IWD is a straightforward rpg - the main reason that BG players rate it lower than BG. (BG is a "near-perfect-real-time-world-rpg" and since you can interact with the people in this "world" BG has more stuff to do: usually solving non-main quest problems such as finding items for someone else, save a troubled village, more NPC interaction, etc.) Icewind Dale lacks the non-linear "adventures" BG has, but it does have a deep story; in Ch 3 you can feel the pain and the sorrow of the elves and its deep story behind it, for example. And the battles (specially in the heart of fury mode) it really requires some deep strategies at times. I recall when i tried to figure out how to kill the Summoner with a thief w/o interrupting the main force in ch 2 level 4.

Well, I can't speak for IWD I but the reason I prefer IWD II to BG 1 and 2 is the many-member "create YOUR OWN" party option- that just doesn't exist in many games. I was able to create my own tales in the game as to how my people came together and everything.

BG1/2 were interesting with the character interactions and all, but eventually there comes a time when Imoen's catchphrase becomes highly annoying and you just HAVE to turn the sound off. (The same goes for repetitious music).

As for linear v. freeform games- I hate freeform games and bemoan the creation of them. I don't do side quests. They waste time. And for that, I suffered in the BG games.

As it is, I'm only in chapter 5 or so in IWD2 (out of 7 or so) and am on day 2380. It takes me FOREVER to finish these games. (I'm in my 2nd real life year on IWD2- and that's WITH the strategy guide... and me doing EVERYTHING it says)

BG1 took me over 876 game days and 3 1/2 real life years to finish- and by my estimates, it took me about 200+ hours to finish. I simply hated the 'freeform' roaming around baldur's gates' sewers. (It took me 50 hours alone and nearly 1 1/2 real life years [and I'm not exaggerating] to get past the mines in chapter 2.) [Eventually I downloaded an internet guide and finally made it across on the easiest level possible- while saving every five minutes (or less)... and I still died every 10 minutes into the game!] The only time in that I ever felt reasonably strong in the game was when I scrapped my original party at the gates to Baldur's Gate and assumed the BG:ToTSC add-on pack people to finish the series. (and that was partially due to the fact that in that game, all the bad and traps guys are cleared in a few crucial areas- such as that endless maze that I hated even though I could easily see the exit of it!)

That being said, it brings up another point- what's with all the 'darkness' in today's games?- doom, etc.? I can't stand adventuring underground in BG or IWD2. I would rather have a bright area where I can actually see. It does nothing for the atmosphere, at least in my mind, and frankly, I have tyet to become 'immersed in a game' or 'scared by one' despite designers best efforts. At best, darkness annoys rather than frightens me.

In 'real' dungeon-crawls like Moraff's World (which I will admit, was free-form, but that's only because its goal was just to kill stuff, and since that was clear, it wasn't frustrating because I was getting to my goal- get gold, get stuff, level up.) and the early 1990-era D&D games, the gameplay was crude and usually buggy, but it was fun because the lighting was good and the tone mysterious- without being idiotically obscuring! Why can't we return to that age?

(Technically, I know the reason- most people want darkness. I'm an anomaly- but I still have the right to complain.)

Thanks for your comments, thinkinggamer

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
DrSpike


Maybe you're right to a point. I don't have as much time for games as I once did. But I still enjoy the same type of games: TBS, RPG, RTS, in that order. IT's just that they aren't making them in the same style that they once did.

For example, I don't really like the new 'free-form' RPG's. And 3D games like NWN look bad. (regardless of the fact that I can't play them on my computer) And 3D games such as Dungeon Seige (which I played for about 30 minutes) seem vapid.

Now, I'll admit that Fable for the Xbox ran well, and was interesting, but I couldn't stand its free-from uqests and if I didn't have a friend giving me running commentary on what to do, I may never have gotten out of the endless prologue.

As for today's RTS's, I don't have time to learn complicated formulae on what beats what and when to build what when unless there's an acutal good tutorial. I have yet to defeat more than 3 levels on any RTS (save Kohan- and amazinly I did it at HARD difficulty level!) without access to a strategy guide... and without following its directions to the T.

And frankly, Warcraft III's graphics look terrible.

I will admit though, that Empire Earth's semi-3D is acceptable.

In ye olde days, Command and Conquer: Red Alert's story was engaging and moving and gave hints to the player as to what could be done to improve his units. (alhtough I have yet to win any scenarios beyond the first 3-5 story ones on the Red and allied sides. The ai is simply too good.) And Age of Empire's scenario editor made playing that game fun! Without that editor, I would have hated RTSes.

As for TBSes... Alpha Centauri was good- though far too dark for me to focus on it for more than 2 hours at a time... and I never figured out its cryptic scenario editor. (That's my favorite things with games- scenario editors)
And Civ III... it seemed like a downgrade from Civ II... the last TBS that I liked was Europa Universalis. *Sigh* Sadness

I think it's strange to argue games aren't made the way they were and then make a point of talking about graphics. Obviously graphics are much better these days.

As for more specific points:

1) I don't like free-form RPGs either. Here's a plan, play others. KotOR and NWN are games I've enjoyed. You say NWN looks bad, though it wasn't terrible for when it came out (ok the expansions look a bit dated) but I'd argue it's the gameplay that should be your focus.

2) Today's RTS's are a little more advanced than C&C in tactical terms, but not by much - they are hardly rocket science. Furthermore, more games have multiple balanced races and decent SP campaigns that in absolute terms put C&C and co to shame, as indeed they should.

Tbh from your posts it looks like you have changed, not the games. You have less patience, and ultimately you get out of gaming what you put in.

[Adagio]

I just read on gamespy Team17 is creating a Worms 4... I'm defently looking forward to this, though I do hope they make it more interesting than Worms 3 (if they had just fixed the bugs and missing features it would have been an awsome game)... I wonder if they're just reusing the graphics engine from Worms 3D or they're making a new one...

Can someone answer me why the code for the MP part in all worms games is soo bad? In every worms game so far there's a huge lag, where all other players don't get to see the results of one players action before at least 5 sec after he's finished... Worms is defently a MP game, but because of this lag I can never get anybody to play a game against me