 |
Poll Result |
 |
| |
How many Ds do you want? |
|
| |
| 2 is enough |
|
74% |
[ 23 ] |
| Gimme 3 or nothing! |
|
25% |
[ 8 ] |
|
|
| |
Total Votes : 31 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Author |
|
|
|
Magnulus
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 556
Location: Bergen, Norway
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
FWOOSSH!!
That was the sound of Hamish's post going full speed past Icarus' head.
(did he just use a no-no word?) |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
 |
|
Lothar
Starscape Jedi
Joined: 21 Dec 2003
Posts: 522
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Magnulus wrote: | | Yeah, I don't think I ever did play beyond the first few levels of Descent. Mostly because it didn't really draw me in. |
Yep. Some people just didn't get drawn in by it. (But I don't think it's reasonable to say a game is "bland" or "boring" or whatever if you haven't played through at least half of it on the medium skill level.)
| Quote: | | Still, to this day, there are few games that live up to the MENTALITY of Doom. The sheer in-your-face attitude of it. |
... and that's EXACTLY what I was getting at. DooM was such an amazing experience... it pulled you in and you fought like mad against hordes of evil things, and it did it in a revolutionary game engine. I can't say the same for any other game I've played.
| Quote: | | I play games because a game can simulate reality. |
... then why are you on a Starscape forum again?
If I want reality, I'll go outside and see some reality. If I'm playing a game, it's generally because reality isn't interesting enough for me at the moment.
I play everything from card games (Freecell and Spider Solitaire are my current favorites) to Nethack to DooM to Dungeon Siege 2 to Descent to Civ4 to Starscape. The common theme there is not "simulates reality well"; it's "gives me something interesting to do". |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Chibi
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 271
Location: Denver, CO, United States
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| icarus wrote: | | Old school games SUCK. |
Then why did they make a 3d version of Pong? Galaga? Kirby? Mario? Zelda? And about 24 3d versions of Pacman? If they suck so much, you'd think there would be LESS fascination over them, right? And by the way, in about ten years, every game you've seen today will be considered "Old School". Eat your words, heathen! 
| icarus wrote: | | I play games because a game can simulate reality. I do not want to simulate running thro a maze and popping pills. |
And I don't want to simulate swinging through a city trying to hang onto cobwebs. But that's why we don't play those games, right? Apple Jacks. We eat what we like.
| icarus wrote: | | I do NOT give 2 **** about graphics. |
I'll assume you said "rats" since there's only four stars there. Do you give one rat then? Or three? You don't give two, so you must mean one, since one is less than two, and two is included in three or more. So why do you give A rat? And if you gave one, then why not 2? And FINALLY:
You contradict yourself with this statement, which is semantically synonymous with saying "I don't CARE about graphics". And yet you won't play a game that's 2d? I thought you didn't CARE! Graphics make not a good game. Have you seen Ascii Portraits? I bet you could make a 3d game using entirely ascii characters. I bet it would be cool too. Sure, the letters would be distracting sometimes, but it would LOOK cool. A field of 3d rendered letters, the correct color for the object they're representing, the right saturation, and brightness. That's the way of the future.
| icarus wrote: | | In homeworld the poly count was in the double digits and the textures looked like ****, yet it is still the most Beautiful game ever. |
I'll assume you said that the textures look like "GOLD". Because if you actually played it with a good videocard, hey man, Homeworld was awesome. My point though, is that it was an RTS. I'm not sure I'd want to play a 3d Third-person space-shooter, homeworld graphics or not. The cameraman would always be getting lost behind walls or larger ships, and I'd want to shoot the programmer instead of the armadas that I CANT SEE BECAUSE OF THE STUPID CAMERAMAN!
| icarus wrote: | | What I want in a game is to be able to do evrything I could do in real life and more. And real life is in 3D. |
And you want this through a keyboard, joystick, and mouse? I think we're rather limited by our input devices. Even most Eye-Toy games aren't really 3d. (How many EyeToy games have you heard of?) And that's the most advanced input device we have right now. What you want is the HoloDeck/HoloSuite. Sorry, man, those are still in development, and once they come out, they'll be quite expensive and possibly dangerous.
| icarus wrote: | Now this pointless argument has gone on long enough. Icarus out.  |
I think it's rather pointed. That's why we reply. =P
(Shout out to everyone who owns the Firefly series on DVD!)
Spoiler (highlight to read): | (As a side note, I want to express that I am working with a computer company which is halfway on it's way to developing a viable 3d operating system which will revolutionize the internet, and bring about such technologies as Portable Computing and Holographic Imaging in inexpensive ways. I know the benefits of 3d, and that's why Microsoft's 3d ui, Linux's 3d ui, and Java's 3d ui won't be half as well-known as my ui... The reason I'm arguing for 2d is because a lot of people don't realize that 2d still has a place in the world, and I like playing the devil's advocate. A lot!) |
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
icarus
Troll
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Location: Olympia Washington
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Magnulus wrote: | FWOOSSH!!
That was the sound of Hamish's post going full speed past Icarus' head. |
BOING
That was the sound of My post bouncing off Magnulus' head
I was agreying with Hamish
| Chibi wrote: | | icarus wrote: | | Old school games SUCK. |
Then why did they make a 3d version of Pong? Galaga? Kirby? Mario? Zelda? And about 24 3d versions of Pacman? If they suck so much, you'd think there would be LESS fascination over them, right? And by the way, in about ten years, every game you've seen today will be considered "Old School". Eat your words, heathen! |
"SUCK" is my opinion not the opinion of the people who remake old games.
And i am probably exagerating when i say they suck but i am tired of people worshiping games because of nostaga (also 80s cartoons suck too)
FLASH FORWARD 20years...
icarus jr: Dad why are you still playing that stupid Deus Ex It doesn't even have DNI support. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Magnulus
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 556
Location: Bergen, Norway
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Fost
Pod Team
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 3734
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| icarus wrote: | | i am tired of people worshiping games because of nostaga |
I actually think the majority of people don't worship them and think they suck, but of course a lot of the gaming press grew up on them, which is why you hear about classic games a lot.
The thing that interests me, is that many old games had a core gameplay mechanic that was just fun, and yet when you play them they exhibit some atrocious (by today's standards) design decicions that just make the game zero fun. I'll take Knight Lore as a case in point. I recently played through the game from start to finish, and whilst I enjoyed it there was a big chunk of nostalgia propping that enjoyment up. Here's the problems 'modern' gamers would experience playing it:
- No in game tutorial - there's not much to the game though, so it's easy to pick up, but a modern game would not even require you to read a manual.
- No map. This game just cannot be completed without making a map of where you are visiting. I downloaded one, and then filled in the random placement of objects as I went. I doubt modern gamers are happy about needing a pen and paper handy, and yet that was a staple of many 8bit era games.
- Limited number of lives, and yet you often have to die to work out how many of the rooms work.
- Time limited game, and the time limit is on the border of you being able to complete the game if you make too many mistakes.
The thing that is obviously interesting to us at Moonpod, is that all these problems are easily fixable. In fact, most spectrum emulators allow POKES (memory changes) so you can even test this out.
Read the manual, print out a map, enter the infinite time cheat (this could even be a difficulty setting), enter the infinite lives cheat, and Knight Lore becomes a pretty fun little game (assuming the graphics aren't something you'll have an issue with).
Nostalgia really just plays a part in helping you see past the flaws and the things that are missing you'd expect in any modern game. I recently showed another spectrum of my favourite games to Mark, and he couldn't even stand to play it  [/list] |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Chibi
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 271
Location: Denver, CO, United States
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fost wrote: | | [*]No map. This game just cannot be completed without making a map of where you are visiting. I downloaded one, and then filled in the random placement of objects as I went. I doubt modern gamers are happy about needing a pen and paper handy, and yet that was a staple of many 8bit era games. |
Yay Wizardry!!
[*]Limited number of lives, and yet you often have to die to work out how many of the rooms work.
Ouch.
The thing that is obviously interesting to us at Moonpod, is that all these problems are easily fixable.
But that was during the era where games were games. Games were plain little snippets of code, which for the most part, worked like they should. If something too awful bad happened, you just assumed it was the hardware, so you curse for a while, pull out the cartridge, blow out the dust, and press "reset". Since you already bought it, it was just supposed to work. Start, Gameplay("Features" and all), Ending. You beat the game, or you get tired of it. Sell it to the pawnshop and buy a new one.
I really liked Megaman 2 though. That one made the series, I think. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Magnulus
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 556
Location: Bergen, Norway
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm doing a thing these days where I'll be running through the old mario games in chronological order. I'm still on the first game, but the thing that surprises me is that I can't stop. I've died and had to start over several times, yet I feel compelled to keep playing the same levels over and over until I finally beat the game.
Granted, it's not without reason that Mario rivals Pavarotti as the most famous Italian in the world, but this has got to say something positive about "ye olde play-things" because nostalgia normally isn't powerful enough for me to keep playing like this.
Oh, I just remembered: Nethack.
Nethack has an absurd amount of freedom, and it's ascii-based! (well, there are tilemaps and Vulture's Eye, but the base of the game isn't even graphical, though I prefer at least some 16x16 sprites to look at so I get an idea of what it is that's chasing me.) And not ascii based like the Quake Textmode mod, either. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Weeble
Starscape Jedi
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 1143
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fost wrote: | - No map. This game just cannot be completed without making a map of where you are visiting. I downloaded one, and then filled in the random placement of objects as I went. I doubt modern gamers are happy about needing a pen and paper handy, and yet that was a staple of many 8bit era games.
|
Interesting one, this. I quite enjoy making maps. It's a very particular kind of challenge. It's great when you assemble the information already available to you and can see the bigger picture, especially if it reveals prominent empty spaces or patterns that will lead you to hidden things. If the map is provided to you automatically you just miss out on this. I think for a lot of games, a good compromise is to have no automatic map, a game that can reasonably be completed without one, and rewards for those who go to the bother of mapping things out and taking notes.
Other games can benefit from a spatial map that omits connection infomation - so you can tell where you are and where you've been, but not necessarily how to get between them. (Kind of like Starscape at the moment. Of course, Starscape isn't really about exploring in that sense, so it doesn't really benefit. I don't think I would derive much enjoyment from drawing up Starscape maps.) |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Chibi
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 271
Location: Denver, CO, United States
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Magnulus wrote: | Oh, I just remembered: Nethack.
Nethack has an absurd amount of freedom, and it's ascii-based! (well, there are tilemaps and Vulture's Eye, but the base of the game isn't even graphical, though I prefer at least some 16x16 sprites to look at so I get an idea of what it is that's chasing me.) And not ascii based like the Quake Textmode mod, either. |
Yus, NetHack is a great game, and served as the inspiration for the Random Mapping system of the Diablo Series, if I recall correctly.
QTNethack graphics are nice. Have you seen the isometric version of Nethack? |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
icarus
Troll
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Location: Olympia Washington
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yah there needs to be more games like nethack.
It was fun finding new ways to die. If only you could save and reload after dieing. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Magnulus
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 556
Location: Bergen, Norway
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, you mean the Vulture's Eye, I suppose. It looks kinda cool, but to be honest, I never really got into Nethack on the PC. I don't know if this is unique to the GP2X version I'm playing, but this one is menu-based, since you can't have the same amount of single-keypress actions. And what -I- find is that the menus are great, because they allow me to FIND any action I want even if I don't know what exact keypress it's supposed to be. It's so great. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Chibi
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 271
Location: Denver, CO, United States
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Magnulus wrote: | | Yeah, you mean the Vulture's Eye, I suppose. |
Yeah.
Nethack QT vs Nethack VulturesEye
  |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
MrPete
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At the end of the day not everyone is gonna be pleased by an either 3d or 2d solution.
But the current - and good - gameplay of starscape is 2d.
And seriously, if you want realism, think how much that entails in terms of physics & cpu power.
Seriously just think about the pro's and cons of each type of rendering.
At the end of the day 2d looks better MORE RELIABLY. You don't have to turn down the graphics cos theres too many enemies on the screen and your computer is starting to lag. Well... that often 
You can run music in the background.
You can run it on older non top of the range computers.
To be fair 3d could add realistic lighting.
You can use extra bits of engine to create 3d effects *if* you really want.
You can have a TRILLION polygons on one ship, with the same lag as a ship with ONE polygon.
You probably aint gonna get the ability to change fuel/weapon/shield power ratio's, realistic damage & bouncing on collisions, fuel usage, sweat on your hand causing you to miss the fire button, but you can just stop trolling, sorry if i cause offence, and accept that you might not be the only person with a valid opinion. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Chibi
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 271
Location: Denver, CO, United States
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrPete wrote: | | you might not be the only person with a valid opinion. |
What it comes down to is this; Not every game has to be 3d. Not every program has to be freeware, or open source. Not every famous artist has to be dead. And not every motor vehicle has to run on gasoline.
I don't know why people think that they do, but they don't. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
