Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Preview Another OMG!THIS GAEM IS SO AWSOME!!! Oblivion preview

Rendelius

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 25, 2003
Messages
164
bryce777 said:
Civ IV is needlessly complicated, too...it doesn't benefit from much of it.

There are and have always been different market segments. Strategy and RPG segments have always been much different from the arcade segment. The problem is that publishers are completely out of touch with these segments. They lump together all platforms into the same general 'video games' label. As if you can compare a game from the civ series to the command and conquer series or a game like oblivion to the later ultimas.

I agree.

You know why developers opt for 10-15 hours of gameplay in a game nowadays? Research showed that 90% of gamers don't play a game longer than that, they move on to the next one. So the tactics is to let the gamer finish the game within the time he normally dedicates to it, to reward him for playing.

Do I like this development? No. Does it make sense from a business point of view? Yes.
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
Could you be a little less cavalier about statistics, please?
 

Oarfish

Prophet
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,511
You know why developers opt for 10-15 hours of gameplay in a game nowadays? Research showed that 90% of gamers don't play a game longer than that, they move on to the next one.

Is that the case with all genres? Even for fighting/sports/multiplayer games that should have replay value? I could understand that with single player shooters, I have little urge to go back and play HL2 through as I saw everything the first time.

Do you have a source for those statistics? I could understand the low play time of games that are heavily narrative and/or linear, but not for others. The ammount of time racked up by your average BF2/WOW player is pretty damn scary.
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
Rendelius said:
LlamaGod said:
No use in ridiculing him, that's just the way it is. Be gentle, people like us are becoming an outdated minority, and we arn't the target group for gaming companies anymore, at least not for the mainstream ones...

That's a perfectly good reason to ridicule him.

Only if that's an important source for your self-esteem *g*

Them crazy Nazis are the major power here in 1942 Germany, us non-crazy Germans are becoming quite a minority. We better lay down and let them grow because they're whats the cool thing now-a-days.

Civ IV is needlessly complicated, too...it doesn't benefit from much of it.

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
 

kris

Arcane
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
8,891
Location
Lulea, Sweden
Oarfish said:
You know why developers opt for 10-15 hours of gameplay in a game nowadays? Research showed that 90% of gamers don't play a game longer than that, they move on to the next one.

Is that the case with all genres? Even for fighting/sports/multiplayer games that should have replay value? I could understand that with single player shooters, I have little urge to go back and play HL2 through as I saw everything the first time.

Do you have a source for those statistics? I could understand the low play time of games that are heavily narrative and/or linear, but not for others. The ammount of time racked up by your average BF2/WOW player is pretty damn scary.

And strategy, where some can last months, if not years.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
80
Levski 1912 said:
Galactic Civilizations 2 kicks Civilization 4's ass to the curb.
How is GC2 compared to GC1? I still have some RSI issues with my mousing hand from playing the first one.

Civ4 sucked, I exchanged it for Stronghold 2 after 20 minutes of playtime.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
pseudo intellectual said:
Levski 1912 said:
Galactic Civilizations 2 kicks Civilization 4's ass to the curb.
How is GC2 compared to GC1? I still have some RSI issues with my mousing hand from playing the first one.

Civ4 sucked, I exchanged it for Stronghold 2 after 20 minutes of playtime.

I was surprised how good stronghold was. the second one was a bit of a letdown, hough, and the graphics were crap.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
80
bryce777 said:
pseudo intellectual said:
Levski 1912 said:
Galactic Civilizations 2 kicks Civilization 4's ass to the curb.
How is GC2 compared to GC1? I still have some RSI issues with my mousing hand from playing the first one.

Civ4 sucked, I exchanged it for Stronghold 2 after 20 minutes of playtime.

I was surprised how good stronghold was. the second one was a bit of a letdown, hough, and the graphics were crap.

The quality and balance of the campaign mode was the primary problem with Stronghold 2, though the graphics could have been better.

The first game was superior, I agree.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
pseudo intellectual said:
bryce777 said:
pseudo intellectual said:
Levski 1912 said:
Galactic Civilizations 2 kicks Civilization 4's ass to the curb.
How is GC2 compared to GC1? I still have some RSI issues with my mousing hand from playing the first one.

Civ4 sucked, I exchanged it for Stronghold 2 after 20 minutes of playtime.

I was surprised how good stronghold was. the second one was a bit of a letdown, hough, and the graphics were crap.

The quality and balance of the campaign mode was the primary problem with Stronghold 2, though the graphics could have been better.

The first game was superior, I agree.

I thought it was good right until the end. The last mission looked so ridiculous I just said fuck it and didn't bother to finish it.

Actually, it may have been a bit too easy, really. Well, until the end, anyhow.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom