State of the games industry

[USMC Sniper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 14 2003,02:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I like SimCity 4 alot as a matter of fact<span id='postcolor'>

Same.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 13 2003,17:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I like SimCity 4 alot as a matter of fact<span id='postcolor'>

As do I, other then the fact that the majority of buildings shown on the box aren't available in the game as they forgot to include the Houston tileset. oops.

We need a thumbs down post icon.

[toadeater 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blademun @ Feb. 14 2003,02:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Medieval Total war<span id='postcolor'>

Oh no... Medieval: Total War. That has stolen my OFP motivation for the past two weeks. But I shall return to OFP, when I get into the tactical mood again. Also noticed Rome: Total War is being developed and looks ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE:

Climbing walls

Romans in battle

<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>no pic size over 100kb!</span>

[Noone 4]

Well, I 've got a question to ask then. We have two projects (or main lines of production) right now. One has an engine-demo ready the second is in architecture planing state. The both projects are supposed to be developed at the same time. In practice it is impossible. We can focus mainly on one of them only. So we are argueing on the matter. Which project has a better potential and should be given priority. One of them is OFP-like (a group oriented FPS, but more striktly scripted then OFP) and the second is 3D RTS in space. No resourse gathering, no building - pure tactical combat with more wargaming then standard RTS (no healthbars) and very twisted stroyline. So what do you think : which project has a brighter future?

[Guest]

Team based FPS have traditionally been the higher selling genre....there aren't many Space RTS games that have done well. But who knows...ultimately I think you should work on the one that your team likes the most...you'll stick with it longer, and put more energy into it.

[Sith 0]

Forgive me for the lack of coherency in my previous post. I should've been in bed at the time of writing

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I see it the problem goes both ways. The game industry makes things that they know that they can sell. The result of that is that the developers of the games don't look past the polygons, textures and vertex shaders. I believe that the hardware industry is also in part responsible for this. They need quick releases of games that can support their brand new hardware.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes that's true. I kinda tried to explain that with the flashy turbo-graphics explosive woah action â„¢ bit. As long as people buy this stuff, there will be plenty of developers who gladly make a quick buck out of it. Similarly, as long as making big innovative games does not always assure you of good sales, many studios will keep from producing those.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I followed your suggestion and bought "Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf ". Sith  you owe me 20 €, <span id='postcolor'>

Got a copy of Sniper here for you to make up for it, I'm sure it'll give you an exciting new look on budget gaming

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mafia would be a fantastic game if you could switch between 1st and 3rd person perspective. As far as I know ('cos I played the demo only) it's 3rd person only, and I'm not a fan of trying to shoot things in that perspective. I don't know how hard it is to code that sort of thing, but there are games going back a few years now that do it. Why not have the option?<span id='postcolor'>

I think Mafia's gameplay would not have been improved at all by the addition of a 1st person view. Look at Hitman, where part 1 required you to avoid gunfights as much as possible, the first person view added in the sequel allowed the player to simply go on a rampage. Buy (!!! ) the full game and you'll probably see why (and it's definately worth getting).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But to counter the arguement just a little Sith, two words. The Sims. Ugly as hell graphics-wise...certainly not flashy turbo-graphics explosive woah action â„¢<span id='postcolor'>

I think you'll agree with me when I say The Sims is a whole case of its own. The game sold incredibly well, simply because it succesfully opened up the market to people that usually dont play games. In other words, it's operating outside of the competition field of the other games, because it targets a completely different audience. And the game doesn't look that special because the people buying don't have a beefed-up "gamer PC".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And just to throw something else in the ring...Quake3. Most (if not all) Pro or close-to-it players....or even just most of the top 25% of all players change the picmip setting to 4, 5 or 6....making the whole game look very "Lego". Certainly not a game you would look at at those settings and think wow...cool graphics. But they do this to improve their own performance skillwise....again, gameplay outweighing super wizzbang ultra sexy â„¢ graphics. Food for thought?<span id='postcolor'>

It's a common thing in competitive games to simplify the visuals, but this has nothing to do with the initial purchase of the game. I think it's fairly safe to say Quake3 would have sold nowhere near as much as it did, if it would've had the "Lego" graphics as standard.

Good graphics will sell the game, but their magic wears off after 5-10 minutes of play. After that the gameplay is the only thing that can keep the player hooked.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I 've got a question to ask then. We have two projects (or main lines of production) right now. One has an engine-demo ready the second is in architecture planing state. The both projects are supposed to be developed at the same time. In practice it is impossible. We can focus mainly on one of them only. So we are argueing on the matter. Which project has a better potential and should be given priority. One of them is OFP-like (a group oriented FPS, but more striktly scripted then OFP) and the second is 3D RTS in space. No resourse gathering, no building - pure tactical combat with more wargaming then standard RTS (no healthbars) and very twisted stroyline. So what do you think : which project has a brighter future?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think anyone but the people on the team itself can answer this question, as you are the only ones that know the games inside out. Have the whole team take an objective look at both projects and discuss which one would be the most fun to play. Ofcourse take into account the work already done and the remaining work required to finish the selected the project. If you're gonna throw away a half-completed game (figure of speech), the other project better be damn well worth it

Good luck with such a tough decision!

Edit:

Totally agree with Leone ... one of the most important things is to go with the project you'll like working on the most. This will not only make your work a lot easier, but also greatly influences the quality of the final product.

[Supah 0]

Flightsims have declined I am/was a big fan but good military flightsims are rare and far between if you dont like the whole ww2 scene. Last good flightsim i played was Falcon 4 ..... my uncle being a ex F-16 jockey that was an experience He was surprised by the realism but then you see people online whining about its realism while they have never been closer to an F-16 then the plastic model they built when they were 12. I dont comment on OFP's realism seeing i have little experience in that field (though i did once get to drive a tank at a scrapyard great fun). Lots of the new games look nice and me not having a great rig that is one of the warning signs that i probably wont be able to run it. Same with OFP:R It looks stunning but i just cant get it to run smoothly. But if all goes well i'll be upgrading in a week or so Maffia i liked but the level where you go with pauly to kill the hoodlums turned me off. That paulie character sure is an idiot, he gets you in trouble and you have to sort it out that just gets plain boring. I play CS allot online but the fun in that is more the "clan" i am in. Its a bunch of friends i hang out with in real live too and the occasional TK with a HE grenade on someone really add's to friday nights pub crawl I think the good games will endure, look at microsofts flightsim series. They have always had realisme down from the start. FS4 was spot on realistic and not at all that bad looking for its day. Now since then all they have had to change is outward appearence when newer graphics became possible but from where i stand nothing much has changed. It seems to me that once you have a working system to simulate controll inputs, VOR/NDB/GPS navigation you have done the most difficult part. It is deadly realistic in simulating civillian aircraft. It is a good game and it still sell (regardless of the heafty price tag for the pro version but hey .... its microsoft) even if it had its bad moments, FS2K was more unstable then robby williams his love life. Good games will win out in the end!

[Antichrist 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 14 2003,02:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I like SimCity 4 alot as a matter of fact<span id='postcolor'>

I actually liked SC4! Too bad I am totally crap at it

[Tex -USMC- 0]

*looks at Rome: Total War Pics*

*Looks at launch GeForce 3 that won't be getting upgraded for a looong time*

*sobs*

[Noone 4]

Well... The problem is that the team is divided... Me and CEO like the idea of RTS, while the rest of the team support the FPS, plus we have the engine partially done for FPS. On the other hand it's not too late to modify the engine. The major problem with the FPS (the reason for the doubts) is that we have been rejected by the publisher (with the FPS) on sole grounds of FPS genre being "overloaded" with upcoming games and well... They said we pose a threat to the OFP... They said they don't need another game of the same kind. (While we all think it's still a very different game)... Well, for now we are going on with the FPS. We'll seen what's going to happen next.

[farmcoot 0]

I'm not big on the miedievil type games. Thats just me. I'm still waiting for SWG and hopefully sometime in the future they will come out with GTA3: Vice City for PC. I sold my PS2 over a year ago and I vowed to never to back to console.

[peanuckle_00 0]

The fact is that the most revoulutinary year in gaming was 2002 and there will probably be another year like that. What revolutionary things do we have to look forward to you ask? Well let me answer that. First off is Breed. Breed is your humans vs. aliens game that takes place in space, on land, and in buildings, underground, in the air, and under the sea as well. There will be battle mecha, spacecraft, subs, tanks, the whole shabang. But here's where the revolutionary element comes in: you can fly from space into the atmosphere of a planet. Gameplay lasting value could be increased if this game were more of a space exploration game instead of kill the aliens all the time, however what other game goes from space to land in the same frame with no loading times? Replay value to me is based on unpredictability. I think that the most revolutionary thing to happen in 2002 was the invention of virtual living cities like in grand theft auto 3. This could be the mere stage of a host of games that have yet to be created but all rest in my head. Imagine a game with the same scene as gta3 but you play as a cop. You start off at the station and you have a phone. The game dynamically produces one of a few basic scenarios(robbery in progress, hostage rescue, drive by suspect, arrest suspect, police standoff) every few seconds or so for you to go out and bust, or take care of if you so choose. Each completed mission gives you money and points which you can use to upgrade thihngs like your guns, your cars, your partner, the technology used to bust people, your health, etc. The points go towards your rank and your stations reputation. The better your reputation gets the less crime happens in your part of the city and the higher in rank you get. Once you reach the part of police chief, perhaps you can move onto another city (go up a level-an important game theme) or you can stay in your district and just keep busting crimes for as long as you want since the game dynamically makes scenarios. This game would have realism with money and ranks, map skills, etc. It would have replay value with its dynamic scenarios popping up every now and then. If they could nail this game's graphics then itd be awesome. Perhaps a cd that comes with several gta sized cities to clean up would take alot of time, perhaps months to beat but thats the best part.

Edit: An online component could come with it enabling people to work in teams for the same station. Maybe it could take place in the future and if you raised enough money your station could afford police mecha and tanks.

[Antichrist 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peanuckle_00 @ Feb. 15 2003,01:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact is that the most revoulutinary year in gaming was 2002 and there will probably be another year like that.  What revolutionary things do we have to look forward to you ask?  Well let me answer that.  First off is Breed.  Breed is your humans vs. aliens game that takes place in space, on land, and in buildings, underground, in the air, and under the sea as well.  There will be battle mecha, spacecraft, subs, tanks, the whole shabang.  But here's where the revolutionary element comes in: you can fly from space into the atmosphere of a planet.  Gameplay lasting value could be increased if this game were more of a space exploration game instead of kill the aliens all the time, however what other game goes from space to land in the same frame with no loading times?  Replay value to me is based on unpredictability.  I think that the most revolutionary thing to happen in 2002 was the invention of virtual living cities like in grand theft auto 3.  This could be the mere stage of a host of games that have yet to be created but all rest in my head.  Imagine a game with the same scene as gta3 but you play as a cop.  You start off at the station and you have a phone.  The game dynamically produces one of a few basic scenarios(robbery in progress, hostage rescue, drive by suspect, arrest suspect, police standoff) every few seconds or so for you to go out and bust, or take care of if you so choose.  Each completed mission gives you money and points which you can use to upgrade thihngs like your guns, your cars, your partner, the technology used to bust people, your health, etc.  The points go towards your rank and your stations reputation.  The better your reputation gets the less crime happens in your part of the city and the higher in rank you get.  Once you reach the part of police chief, perhaps you can move onto another city (go up a level-an important game theme) or you can stay in your district and just keep busting crimes for as long as you want since the game dynamically makes scenarios.  This game would have realism with money and ranks, map skills, etc.  It would have replay value with its dynamic scenarios popping up every now and then.  If they could nail this game's graphics then itd be awesome.  Perhaps a cd that comes with several gta sized cities to clean up would take alot of time, perhaps months to beat but thats the best part.

Edit:  An online component could come with it enabling people to work in teams for the same station.  Maybe it could take place in the future and if you raised enough money your station could afford police mecha and tanks.<span id='postcolor'>

What was so revolutionary about 2002?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ Feb. 15 2003,04:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peanuckle_00 @ Feb. 15 2003,01:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact is that the most revoulutinary year in gaming was 2002 and there will probably be another year like that.  What revolutionary things do we have to look forward to you ask?  Well let me answer that.  First off is Breed.  Breed is your humans vs. aliens game that takes place in space, on land, and in buildings, underground, in the air, and under the sea as well.  There will be battle mecha, spacecraft, subs, tanks, the whole shabang.  But here's where the revolutionary element comes in: you can fly from space into the atmosphere of a planet.  Gameplay lasting value could be increased if this game were more of a space exploration game instead of kill the aliens all the time, however what other game goes from space to land in the same frame with no loading times?  Replay value to me is based on unpredictability.  I think that the most revolutionary thing to happen in 2002 was the invention of virtual living cities like in grand theft auto 3.  This could be the mere stage of a host of games that have yet to be created but all rest in my head.  Imagine a game with the same scene as gta3 but you play as a cop.  You start off at the station and you have a phone.  The game dynamically produces one of a few basic scenarios(robbery in progress, hostage rescue, drive by suspect, arrest suspect, police standoff) every few seconds or so for you to go out and bust, or take care of if you so choose.  Each completed mission gives you money and points which you can use to upgrade thihngs like your guns, your cars, your partner, the technology used to bust people, your health, etc.  The points go towards your rank and your stations reputation.  The better your reputation gets the less crime happens in your part of the city and the higher in rank you get.  Once you reach the part of police chief, perhaps you can move onto another city (go up a level-an important game theme) or you can stay in your district and just keep busting crimes for as long as you want since the game dynamically makes scenarios.  This game would have realism with money and ranks, map skills, etc.  It would have replay value with its dynamic scenarios popping up every now and then.  If they could nail this game's graphics then itd be awesome.  Perhaps a cd that comes with several gta sized cities to clean up would take alot of time, perhaps months to beat but thats the best part.

Edit:  An online component could come with it enabling people to work in teams for the same station.  Maybe it could take place in the future and if you raised enough money your station could afford police mecha and tanks.<span id='postcolor'>

What was so revolutionary about 2002?<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently Breed. I heard it was strictly okay.

[monkeygoat 0]

I didn't think breed was out yet, but I might be thinking of something else.

[Guest]

I didn't think Breed was out yet either....it does sound good though. And FFS peanuckle......use paragraphs! Please..... Also I've actually had an idea for a game which isn't too far off yours.....race you to the Beta