Sid Meier On Industry State 121
Gamespy had a talk with Sid Meier and Soren Johnson at the DICE event last month, and they've got some interesting commentary on the current state of the gaming industry. From the article: "I think the thing is, if you're going to make a multiplayer game, the days of trying to 'shoehorn' in multiplayer are over. As an aside, I think we're almost reaching a point where single-player games are getting under-served. One reason I really enjoy World of Warcraft is that there's so few good single-player RPGs for the PC right now. I mean, I play with my friends, but I also like to solo -- I have separate characters for each -- because there aren't really any good single-player RPGs out there to play! But anyways, if you're going to make a good multiplayer game, you need to make that a priority from the beginning."
Maybe My First First Post (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe My First First Post (Score:2)
I love WWII games and there are often fun new things in each game. But they're still all basic FPS. Sure we can now talk with our comrades in arms, but it's still the same game. I'm not seeing much rapic change in anything except graphics.
Re:Maybe My First First Post (Score:2, Insightful)
What I'd really like to see is more co-op play. I'm slowly developing a mod for Half-Life 2 like this. I just wish I h
Re:Maybe My First First Post (Score:3, Funny)
But you see, grasshopper, you will make one mod for Half-Life. Recurrance relations you will have to deal with over and over and over again.
Re:Maybe My First First Post (Score:2)
Said Wen Shu to the wiseman: the recurrence relation does not affect the lives of everyone. Not all people will ever use them again after school.
Said the wiseman to Wen Shu: But what of the half-life mod?
Said Wen Shu to the wiseman: Mu.
The wiseman smiled.
Re:Maybe My First First Post (Score:2)
I think it was started by Tribe, then there is also Savage and that mod for Half-Life.
Wario Ware is a new genre too I would think.
Re:Maybe My First First Post (Score:2)
Just because the niche you happen to like is plentiful doesn't mean the industry is doing well. Many have been predicting a video game crash for a while now and more and more it's starting to look just that way.
Oh, and you can add MMOs to the list of genres that are being focused on too much by the industry. I mean, I love WoW just like the next person
How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive. (Score:1)
Re:How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive. (Score:2)
Re:How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive. (Score:2)
Two reasons:
Re:How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive. (Score:2)
That's right, even more so when you s/complex/complicated/. And there are online role playing games suited to smaller groups, with lots of players enjoying them, so it'll make sense to make more of them. But massively multiplayer games aren't inherently complicated, and they have interesting aspects unique to them. I don't think it's a good trade-off to lose those by severely cutting back player interactions in all of them. There surely are other ways to d
Re:How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to jump on the current "World of Warcraft rulez" bandwagon, but WoW did that very well. It's an MMORPG that is very simple, without the kind of ridiculous learning curve associated with EQ or AO, or any number of older MMO's, but has enough depth and complexity to keep people playing. I think a lot of people would prefer more depth and complexity (myself included), but I think that their model is clearly working out great for them, so I understand why they're not rushing to screw things up.
non-massive multiplayer RPGs (Score:1)
Make the games so that you can fight with some comrades online (like good ol' dungeoncrawlers), but there's no interaction with other players / guilds / etc.
You mean like Diablo 2 or Neverwinter Nights or a hypothetical DS port of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles?
Re:How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive. (Score:2)
Re:How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive. (Score:1)
Thanks!
Actually I was just curious if such a thing existed, I've never played multiplayer RPG's. Anyway I do agree with Meier in that we need more single player RPG's.
Re:How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive. (Score:2)
Guild Wars! (Score:2)
When you're in town between quests, you can interact with all other players, trading goods and joining guilds and all that stuff. As soon as you leave town, you enter your own instance of the outside world, and the only people in it are you and your party members. It's impossible for other players to steal your kills or otherwise screw up your adventuring, because they're not in the same instance.
Like COH or PSO? (Score:2)
A pretty nice Diablo with lightsabers and blasters, only in an over-the-shoulder view. In fact, I dare say that if you want to wear a stormtrooper outfit (without the helmet) and wield a lightsaber, or play a nasty droid with a blaster carbine/sniper-rifle/dual-pistols, PSO might even be as close to Star Wars as you can probably get without an official license from Lucas. (And a better game than the officially licensed SWG. Not that that says much, SWG being crap at the moment.) Or
Re:How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive. (Score:1)
The whole concept of the 'main quest' is something that I always enjoyed about RPGs and being able to play through them with a couple of friends is really nice.
MP first, SP second (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:MP first, SP second (Score:1)
Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:1)
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:1)
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:2)
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:2)
How do you figure that?
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:1)
WTF are you talking about? First, lets assume you meant Morrowind Oblivion. Per their site, the minimum requirements for Morrowind Oblivion are
Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows XP 64-bit
512MB System RAM
2 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor
128MB Direct3D compatible video card
and DirectX 9.0 compatible driver;
8x DVD-ROM drive
4.6 GB free hard disk space
DirectX 9.0c (included)
DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card
Keyboard, Mou
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:2)
Not saying the game doesn't look great, it does. However it is very easy on the video card. An 8000 series Radeon can run it fine.
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:1)
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:1)
I do not program games or graphics so I admittedly only know the generalities of the subject. But I am a programmer and this really seems like a simple logic switch FUBARed s
Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Civ3 never had any problems with the previous set
I've played Civ4 on a GF2 just fine! (Score:3, Interesting)
The key with both of these is to upgrade one's NVidia's drivers. The performance difference is absolutely amazing, by a factor of 10 for me. Unfortunately, most people just try to play the game, see it not work, and then decide "Well, must be the developer's fault". Unlike a platform game, it's necessary on a PC to do things like disable AntiVirus and upgrade one's drivers. PC gaming is si
Re:I've played Civ4 on a GF2 just fine! (Score:1)
And new drivers - good hint. It's all over the readme's, and the Civ support site, and the independent Civ discussion forums, but - as I said earlier - I just replaced my video card and, seriously?, didn't update the drivers? Thanks for the insight.
And PC games are not like console games - again, amazing! Thank you thank you thank you, a thousand times, thank you for sharing your wisdom.
Re:I've played Civ4 on a GF2 just fine! (Score:2)
Yeah, smaller maps. Thanks. I'll just skip the way I like to play the game and go with the smaller maps.
I'm sorry it's not possible for you to enjoy playing the game on smaller maps. You may also want to think about not being able to enjoy the game without a mininum of a 1600x1200 resolution with bump mapping. Seriously, the game is exactly the same strategically regardless of map size, except that larger maps take much longer to complete a game in due to increased city-level micromanagement
Time and Money (Score:2)
Re:Time and Money (Score:2, Insightful)
it might be nice to have something enjoyable to just hop into for a couple hours that doesn't have a steap learning curve or require the massive time commitment of a massive or require 9 years to load on my 1.7 ghz amd that's starting to feel more and more dated. Guess this is why I find myself tending toward playing older games whenever i find a few free hours to play games.
Re:Time and Money (Score:2)
Guild Wars (Score:2)
I got quite a few hours of fun out of Guild Wars though. No subscription fees. You can
Re:Guild Wars (Score:1)
Re:Guild Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
I *do* mind playing when the competition level isn't even remotely even. I can't practice ten hours a day, and someone who does is going to be vastly better than I am, even if I'm smarter. (Hardly a given- hard core players know every advantage, every strategy, etc) When the final score is 150-0 what's the point of even playing, especially when I know that I can't improve enough given my limited play time to eventually even things out? Perhaps if I devote all my spare time I might be able to make it 149-1. What's worse is that the guy on the other end isn't having any fun either- it's damn boring to win 150-0.
So I play different sorts of games, most which rely less on twitch and more on strategy/skill. Back when I played Guild Wars I was a pretty good Monk- not top competition level, but enough to keep a team alive even at the highest PvE levels provided Leeeroy wasn't playing. I like Puzzle Pirates a lot- the games involve enough strategy that I can keep up with most folks. (Even if I can't seem to get a handle on Bilging.)
Games should be fun. If it's not fun, why play?
Re:Time and Money (Score:1)
I bow to thee, o Sid! (Score:5, Interesting)
If I may somewhat add to his statements, however, I am particularly frustrated by the notion that somehow it has become impossible to allow human team vs. bots in multiplayer. I really was frustrated by this with Return to Castle Wolfenstein and more recently Battlefield 2. The notion that multiplayer in a LAN environment where it's just you and friends on a team versus a number of bots seems to be an anathema in gaming circles any more. Apparently, the rest of the gaming community wants deathmatch or team deathmatch against other humans, and that's all - or so the developers seem to think.
It's ridiculous to me that a game like Battlefield 2 will allow me to go single player, which is made of me and my team bots vs. enemy bots; but God forbid that anyone would have thought to allow me and my human team against enemy bots in a BF2 LAN session*. No, no! No one ever does that any more! And don't tell me that programming the AI is an issue. Games have been allowing team LAN for over a decade. If the enemy AI can go after one person (me) and my team bots, I can't believe that it's so difficult to add another human target for the enemy to go after.
* Actually, you can get limited LAN play in BF2 by starting a single-player game and having other LAN members connect directly to the "server" via the Connect to IP function. Works fairly well. That doesn't explain why such a feature was never officially supported by EA.
So, he really hit two critical points with me: the lack of immersive, single-player games and half-thought-out multiplayer games that do not provide the full options that multipler games should have. It's so nice to hear a heavy-hitter in the industry say what I've been saying for years. Maybe that will give the issues some credibility with game designers.
Ghost Recon : AW (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ghost Recon : AW (Score:3, Informative)
Ghost Rec
Re:Ghost Recon : AW (Score:2)
Re:I bow to thee, o Sid! (Score:1)
Nice attitude. (Score:2)
That's your opinion - not undisputed fact. If you don't like it, then don't use it! Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it sucks nor does it mean that others who DO like it should be deprived of the ability to play it that way.
The fun and challenge of Battlefield 2 is the coordination and teamplay required to be sucessful.
R-i-i-i-i-ight. Because there is absolutely no need for coordination or team play in the single-player mod
Re:Cooperative Against Bots (Score:2)
I have set up cooperative play against bots using the Battlefield 2 server. Not as convenient as doing it in-game, but it can be done.
Just to repeat: I'll post the details here when I try it later today.
Re:Cooperative Against Bots (Score:2)
Check out wccsquad [wccsquad.com] for coop online play or coop maps.
Re:Nice attitude. (Score:2)
Re:Nice attitude. (Score:2)
Next time, know of something before you speak it.
Re:Nice attitude. (Score:2)
Re:I bow to thee, o Sid! (Score:2)
This is solely a matter of the AI in use. Most modern computers have enough CPU to keep operational 5-10 bots that do not suck, more for some games.
Granted, the industry has followed the steps of Doom having cretinous monsters that march with zombie steps left and right and no real AI behind them. This is the "industry standard" at the moment, but there is no need for it to be this way. At all.
Re:I bow to thee, o Sid! (Score:2)
I, too, am frustrated at the complete dearth of cooperative multiplayer games on the market. For a while, most games were single-player with a deathmatch multiplayer mode tacked on; I think
Re:I bow to thee, o Sid! (Score:1)
Re:I bow to thee, o Sid! (Score:2)
Re:I bow to thee, o Sid! (Score:2)
Pick up Shadow of the Colossus. Have fun.
Re:I bow to thee, o Sid! (Score:2)
Re:I bow to thee, o Sid! (Score:1)
Adventure Games (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen! What the world today really needs is more Guybrush Threepwood! Which is to say, more adventure games chock full of puzzles, humor, and living environments to explore. The recent fan game Stargate Adventure [the-underdogs.org] really reminded me of how much fun those old games were. Sure, they didn't have "Three-Dee", but that was okay. They had distinctively attractive artwork that gave a much more organic feel to the game than today's 3D-based games. They also provided the perfect viewpoint for playing out a television or movie in a game.
In fact, many of the more serious adventure games were spinoffs of movies or television. Star Trek 25th anniversay is an example that comes to mind, as is Star Trek: A Final Unity. Another good example is Indiana Jones. The Dig even had a book version of the story!
Today, all that creativity has been shunned in favor of more action and 3D graphics. (Not to mention "adult" themes.) Can we have back a few games that are actually games rather than "entertainment products?" Please?
Re:Adventure Games (Score:1)
Re:Adventure Games (Score:2)
Sheesh, I *still* play through the Quest for Glory series about every eight months or so, because they're just so damn fun.
Re:Adventure Games (Score:2)
Re:Adventure Games (Score:2)
Try DosBox [sourceforge.net]. Works perfectly for the QFG series; I do have 4 crash out occasionally with a DOS error, but I suspect that's 4.
I got that game when it first came out, on floppies, couldn't beat it. Found out a few years later, when I was on the Internet and was thinking about it, and decided to check for a FAQ, that the game shipped with a plot bug that wouldn't trigger a visit from Katrina at a certain time to propel you into the end game.
Re:Adventure Games (Score:2)
Re:Adventure Games (Score:2)
He's mostly right... (Score:1)
The new Elder Scrolls promises to be even better after watching the demo videos [elderscrolls.com]. So i
Re:He's mostly right... (Score:1)
The Elder Scrolls? (Score:2)
because there aren't really any good single-player RPGs out there to play!
Apparently he hasn't heard of Morrowind or Oblivion [theelderscrolls.com]... At least I thought the elder scrolls series were pretty good RPGs.
No RPGs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Shadow Hearts Series
The Nippon Ichi Games (Disgaea, Eternal Mana, Phantom Brave, etc etc)
Dragon Quest Series
Grandia Series
Wild Arms Series
Tales of Games
Shining Tears/Force Neo
Sukisomething or another
The Shin Megumi Tensen games
Elder Scrolls, Baldur's Gate Games...
Final Fantasy 12 is coming out pretty soon...
There are hundreds hundreds of hours of single, mind numbing, no girlfriend having gameplay out there to be had. Costs about 150 bucks + games to get started. To say there is a darth of single
Re:No RPGs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No RPGs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No RPGs? (Score:2)
At the moment? The gaming world was playing squaresoft final fantasy series and chrono trigger 13 years ago on the snes and you just described them pefectly. In hindsight I don't know what the hell I was thinking back in those days.
Re:No RPGs? (Score:3, Informative)
I was trying to wrap the bitterness of truth with a little restraint to make it more palatable and thus avoid charges of trolling and/or racism.
The PS2 and the PS3 simply do not interest me at all due to the fact that their respective game libraries are so heavily populat
Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (Score:1)
That's what we need some more of.
Re:Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (Score:1)
Another reason why BG3 or IWD3 is improbable is because those games use a chronological storyline that keeps things going from the last game to the next (Thi
The Problem with Civ IV (Score:1)
1. Graphics. Overdone, didn't work on three seperate systems I tried.
2. AI. I still think Civ 2 was their best in AI; Civ 3 was too big and slow, Civ 4 was (to me) the exact same AI.
3. The mod system. Definately the biggest failure. XML and Python is great, but my big reason for staying with Java and PHP is simple, documentation. Javadocs for java.* and javax.*, and the PHP amnual ar
Re:The Problem with Civ IV (Score:2)
So when the game gets patched.. it doesn't exist?
Re:The Problem with Civ IV (Score:1)
Known Tech Trees = Inherent Problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does Civ IV include tech trees that the player can know before hand?
That, for me, is one of the big flaws of Civ, AoE, and all that ilk.
Much of the fun of research is that it's hard to predict what you're going to get. Knowing in advance that investing X resources will result in Y improvement turns too much of such games into bookkeeping exercises.
At the least, it would be more fun to make tech advancement based on probability, so that investing X resources gives you a Y% chance of discovering gunpowder. Better would to make research into a topic have a % chance of leading to a variety of technologies, e.g. chem research could lead to the discovery of nylon, or it could lead to the discovery of LSD. It'd raise the amount of thinking and gaming to a new level.
Hey buddy, wanna try some SMAC? (Score:3, Informative)
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- the game with the most appropriate abbreviation ever -- has basically this. You can prioritize the four major research categories however you want, but while you'll only get technologies you qualify for which one you'll actually get once you aquire enough research points is unknown. So you have to think in broader terms
Re:Hey buddy, wanna try some SMAC? (Score:2)
Re:Hey buddy, wanna try some SMAC? (Score:2)
The Good News:
... so's I gets my wish !!!
>Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- the game with the most appropriate abbreviation ever -- has basically this.
The Bad News:
>Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- the game with the most appropriate abbreviation ever -- has basically this.
... so's I adds another game to my "must get around to playing" list !!!
Thank you ... I think?!
Re:Hey buddy, wanna try some SMAC? (Score:2)
It's more addictive than morphine, crack and heroin. It will ruin your life.
I finished a game the other week. Had it since it came out. It's just THAT replayable.
I hate you all (Score:2)
contact Mothers Against Great Gaming ... (Score:2)
Re:Known Tech Trees = Inherent Problem? (Score:1)
That's not the point. Of course players can know the tech tree, whether it comes in the manual or they have to look it up on the web.
But it have an option like in Alpha Centauri, where you don't research "laser guns", you research "military tech" and have a chance of getting lasers, or a better jet engine, or whatever.
Re:Known Tech Trees = Inherent Problem? (Score:2)
>how about making technologies to which multiple purposes can be served
Yes, like the invention of the internet could lead to better communications (=massive economic increase), or to the discovery of the MMPORG gaming (=massive economic decrease, but improvement in civic moral!)
Re:The Problem with Civ IV (Score:1)
Do you want some cheese with that? It's their "biggest failure" because you don't like the language they chose? Well, I guess this is Slashdot.
Since when are developers required to provide documentation for modders? As I recall, Total Annihilation had a whole whack of user-created units, and there was no documentation or support. They cracked the file
Re:The Problem with Civ IV (Score:1)
Re:The Problem with Civ IV (Score:1)
Call help(foo) for pretty much anything in Python and you will get good module or class documenation...
Completely Agree (Score:1)
I totally agree, if there are two great games released in a month I will buy two games that month, if all the games look rubbish I won't bother getting my money out. If only more of the entertainment industry would think like this everyone would be happier!
Imagine that (Score:3, Insightful)
Rob
TACK IT ON (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are there only 5 million PS2/Xbox owners that play games online when the install base is some 100 million (numbers may not be entirely accurate)? The first reason is because not everyone has the opportunity hook their PS2/Xbox up to DSL or cable internet. Secondly, people are averse to technical hurdles (physically setting it up, lag, user interfaces). Lastly, people dislike the social hurdles (griefers, not being able to find friends, not being able to see their faces, etc.).
As for myself, I actively look to purchase games with split screen multiplayer (preferable a customizable split screen). For the average user playing with or against a bunch of friends or relatives while sitting on the couch is much more enjoyable than playing online friends (and idiots) over the internet.
I spend a very limited time playing on my PS2. When I do play the PS2 it is usually with relatives or friends, either taking turns, watching each other, or simultaneously playing.
I give two examples: Super Monkey Ball Deluxe and Dog's Life. I bought both of these for the same reason so I could have something to play with my young nephews. I grant you that Dog's Life received mediocre to good reviews. I played only the beginning of the single player and despite the game world being well-crafted and fleshed out, I soon gave up due to the story-mode's annoyingly cutesy cutscenes and too many tedious gameplay aspects. I later eBayed it for $20 (USD).
I have never played the single-player game of Super Monkey Ball Deluxe, even though reviews say it is quite good (I don't have the time). But I bought the game BECAUSE it had about 10 totally different offline multiplayer modes (that don't require any effort to unlock them). Individually some of these modes can get a little boring after a while, but when taken together they amount to a fairly fun set of party games.
Back to Dog's Life, I would have kept the game if it had ANY fun multiplayer because the animations, controls, and levels were pretty good and most games don't let you control a dog (even Nintendogs only lets you own it not be it). They could have put in a dog barkoff match mode or a dog chases cat mode (they already had models for both), but they didn't so I got rid of it.
Yes, I agree that developer's should focus on either the single-player experience or the multiplayer for the thrust of their efforts, but why not throw in a simple but fun multiplayer mode as long as your creating all of these digital assets. Think about it? What if Pac-Man had a two-player mode where one player is Pac-Man and the other is the only ghost on the board (both retaining same relative speeds etc.)? What if Shadow of the Colossus had a race mode where you can stand up on your running horse and shoot arrows at the player in the lead (but risk falling off/ slowing down)? What if it had a king of the mountain (aka Colossus) mode? Sure you would have to re-optimize the engine to handle split screen and more I/O data, but other than that those modes are practically there, and would have added to the long-term enjoyment of the game.
The reason why industry prefers multiplayer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Play Nethack! (Score:2)
WTF? Nethack consists almost entirely of text!