PDA

View Full Version : Over-rated games.



LOG
01-25-2010, 05:43 PM
I concur. (http://www.planetxbox360.com/article_9412/Top_10_Overrated_Game_Franchises_of_All_Time)

DragonHeart
01-25-2010, 07:05 PM
I have to say as much as I love my Final Fantasy, they nailed at least a couple of points about the series that I do agree with, mainly the extremely linear stories and even characters. You are basically playing the same game over and over, just set in a different world each time. It makes the games very character driven, but the characters are hit and miss most of the time.

I personally dislike how the main casts are always shown to be absolutely, no exceptions good guys even when they're thieves or mercenaries or soldiers. You occasionally get one who isn't, but they're generally thrown-in characters with their own little story then they play no important role for the rest of the game. Between that and the inability to make any sort of moral choices at all...yeah, it can be repetitive.

I'm actually glad it takes them so long to produce the next game in the series, it doesn't feel so stale when you're only playing a new game every two or three years. I do love the games, they're just rather old hat to me these days. I was quite sad to discover I could predict everything that happened in XII at least three hours before it happened. Even their trademark sharp left into wtf-land 3/4 of the way through. /sigh

And I was a Pokefreak for several years. XD Luckily the games don't appeal to me much anymore. I did buy Pearl, but not Platinum. I may get the silver/crystal remake but only because it was my favorite gen of the games. Probably not though, handhelds aren't as interesting now that I don't need them for long car/bus rides and free periods at school.

Wavy_Blue
01-25-2010, 11:41 PM
WTF, Pokemon is badass.

I agree with the rest of the list, though. But I probably wouldn't put Rockband/Guitar Hero at the top.

Shadow_Ferret
01-25-2010, 11:50 PM
I love Halo. It's about the only video game I do enjoy. And as far as " plagued by confusing, labyrinthine levels and few sign posts," my son got through all the levels just fine. Maybe Will Prusik is overrated.

SPMiller
01-26-2010, 12:23 AM
Halo is a pale shadow of what it could have been. It pioneered nothing and popularized little.

Zoombie
01-26-2010, 12:35 AM
YESSS, A SHOUT OUT TO LARRY NIVEN'S RINGWORLD!

Halo's ringworlds piss me off cause their scale is wrong. In one, you clearly see it is in orbit around a gas giant. And yet when you land on it, its got a star in the center.

Seriously, Bungi, way to not think things through!

Lhun
01-26-2010, 04:07 AM
It's quite funny to see how a site called PlanetXbox360 nominates so many series as overrated that aren't actually available on the Xbox, and more that weren't available until extremely recently. Do i detect a little jealousy?
Though i was quite surprised to see Halo on that list. And not surprised to see Final Fantasy. Seriously, somehow every discussion about CRPGs tends to get a mention of how overrated/boring/outdated etc. that series is, and yet, apparently is is exactly right since i can count the number of other RPGs that come even close to selling as many copies on the finger of one hand.

Personally, i don't think any list of overrated games can be complete without having the Blizzard games occupy at least three spaces. I mean, they've got two things going for them, they get the balancing right, and they actually do betatesting. But beyond that? No strategic depth whatsoever, only a handful of cookie-cutter tactics that work, and the interface ... dear god the bloody interface derserves a whole list of its own. It's a freaking distaster.
They should go and actually talk to the guys at Blizzard north. Those are the freaking gods of gaming.

LOG
01-26-2010, 04:37 AM
Diablo and WoW are hardly strategic games...

Zoombie
01-26-2010, 04:51 AM
And I always thought that Warcraft 3 and Starcraft's primary "reasons to be awesome" were their story...which, though somewhat predictable at times, were quite engaging and well done.

<shrugs> They're still not as awesome as the plot to Original War, but what is!?

SPMiller
01-26-2010, 05:41 AM
Funny. I'd say Blizzard is about right. Whether you like the gameplay or not, the products are polished.

LOG
01-26-2010, 05:57 AM
Funny. I'd say Blizzard is about right. Whether you like the gameplay or not, the products are polished.
It's something companies like Blizzard and BioWare have in common, long time to produce games, but when they do, they're pretty much always good.
(Blizzard--Starcraft, Eleven years man, ELEVEN YEARS!!! You can only play it so many times...)

DoomBunny
01-26-2010, 03:58 PM
I'm not sure what their angle is on games like Pokemon and CoD, they're well crafted, polished and supremely well marketed - whether they're overrated is a subjective opinion and if they're not the audience intended they're missing the point. Likewise with several other mentions on their list. Final Fantasy on the other hand, being mass-market, is dreadfully dull. Look, amazing graphics and story! You can have the next bit after you wade through three hours worth of painfully boring gameplay! I finished 7, but by the time I got halfway through 8, 9, and 10 I just didn't care about the characters anymore.

Halo also bugged the crap out of me. They got a lot of marketing mileage out of their amazing level design, and the research and testing that went into it. And yet I still encounter people who get lost in the same places, get stuck in the same choke points, and get bored with the same set pieces. I love the story, but the level design is confusing and painfully repetitive.


Personally, i don't think any list of overrated games can be complete without having the Blizzard games occupy at least three spaces. I mean, they've got two things going for them, they get the balancing right, and they actually do betatesting. But beyond that? No strategic depth whatsoever, only a handful of cookie-cutter tactics that work, and the interface ... dear god the bloody interface derserves a whole list of its own. It's a freaking distaster.
They should go and actually talk to the guys at Blizzard north. Those are the freaking gods of gaming.

Let me guess, you've got a PS3 right? ;)

Blizzard North doesn't exist anymore, hasn't done for years. They haven't done anything since Diablo II anyway. As for strategic depth, Starcraft has plenty, and it wouldn't have lasted this long without it. I'm assuming you're referring to multiplayer seeing as the kind of strategic depth you're asking for is next to impossible in a single-player campaign, especially back then. WoW has no strategic depth, seeing as it's not a strategic game. But it's got tactical depth up the yin-yang, too much if anything. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the interfaces, can you elaborate?

As for beta testing, that's not really the issue. Blizzard has always had more leeway with their release dates than any other studio in history. When a buggy game is released it's invariable because the publisher, not the developer, insisted on pushing it out too early. Blizzard gets to test as much as they need to, and release the game when they're ready. Although this might change in light of the Activision buyout.

SPMiller
01-26-2010, 07:22 PM
WoW has no strategic depth? Lol. I'm guessing you folks didn't get the 2200+ arena achievements. Its interface was also completely moddable.

LOG
01-26-2010, 07:47 PM
Although this might change in light of the Activision buyout.
If they're smart they won't, and so far there has been no sign that they are.
Also, it wasn't a buyout, it was a merge.


WoW has no strategic depth? Lol. I'm guessing you folks didn't get the 2200+ arena achievements. Its interface was also completely moddable.

PvP is one of th eleast strategic areas I could think of...

Lhun
01-27-2010, 01:56 PM
Let me guess, you've got a PS3 right? ;)Nope. Had a PS2, but it's been broken for years. I'm actually thinking about buying a Xbox360, though the fact that it's a true microsoft product (as the failure rate alone can demonstrate) means i'm a bit weary of the though. Bit since i still have more games for the PC than time to play, i'm in no hurry. I'll probably decide when it's time to either upgrade the PC again or buy a console.

Blizzard North doesn't exist anymore, hasn't done for years. They haven't done anything since Diablo II anyway.Blizzard North never "really" existed since the people came from condor when it was bought by Blizzard. But the design team did Diablo 1 through 3, until a big part left BLizzard. Which seriously stalled Diablo 3 development and caused Blizzard to formally dissolve the Blizzard North division. The people from condor who are still with Blizzard work on WoW and Diablo 3. Call them Blizzards RPG team if you like.

As for strategic depth, Starcraft has plenty, and it wouldn't have lasted this long without it.Not a valid argument. I could claim Final Fantasy games can't be boring or they wouldn't sell so well by the same line of reasoning. The only thing sale numbers prove is that the games are what people like to buy, which is not necessarily the same as what people like to play for 100 hours. And Starcraft still being played is, if anything, evidence of it not having strategic depth. Blizzard RTS games are an unholy mush of real time tactics and arcade-style clickfest, which is probably what appeals to so many people. I played Starcraft too, quite extensively (mostly during class) and it was fun for a while.
Calling it "strategy" though is violating that word.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with the interfaces, can you elaborate?Mostly the interface of every Blizzard RTS since Warcraft 1. For example the idiotic limit on the number of units you can keep selected at once. And special abilities that need to be microed. Limited production qeues. And don't get me started on repairing damaged units. Some of those got improved a little in WC3, but to make up for it, Blizzard introduced heroes. It's like the interface was designed deliberately to give an edge to the player with the faster trigger finger, instead of the player with the better tactics. If i want a game where reflexes decide the outcome, i'll play a shooter.

As for beta testing, that's not really the issue. Blizzard has always had more leeway with their release dates than any other studio in history. When a buggy game is released it's invariable because the publisher, not the developer, insisted on pushing it out too early.Not an excuse. Blizzard apparently managed to convince the people at Vivendi to give them as much time as they need, which is a useful skill in itself. Sure Vivendi might not have been as horrendous to work for as Atarigrames, but it's not like they let all devs take as much time as Blizzard either.

It's something companies like Blizzard and BioWare have in common, long time to produce games, but when they do, they're pretty much always good.I have to disagree here. Although i'd say Bioware produces games that are even better than Blizzard games. I don't think i've played any game as many times as Baldur's gate. Except perhaps Star Ocean 3. But Bioware games have been quite buggy in the past. Not the worst offenders by far, but nowhere near the best either. Anyway, I couldn't name any developer that produces first releases that are as bug-free as those from Blizzard. Console developers, yes. But that doesn't count since they have to be much more careful. Or had to in the past. I hear it's slowly changing since the latest generation consoles can patch games.
(Blizzard--Starcraft, Eleven years man, ELEVEN YEARS!!! You can only play it so many times...)Don't ignore WC3. Just because it's not the same series doesn't mean it took no time to make. ;)

LOG
01-27-2010, 06:32 PM
Blizzard RTS games are an unholy mush of real time tactics and arcade-style clickfest, which is probably what appeals to so many people. I played Starcraft too, quite extensively (mostly during class) and it was fun for a while.

Then that's what people like to play, wouldn't you say.



Calling it "strategy" though is violating that word.

Oh really? What is a good strategy game then?



Mostly the interface of every Blizzard RTS since Warcraft 1. For example the idiotic limit on the number of units you can keep selected at once... Limited production qeues. And don't get me started on repairing damaged units.
I think that had more to do more with technology limits. Make two-thousand units on the battle-field and the PC slows to badness. Those sort of limits were there to help keep PC's from swamping under the numbers.


And special abilities that need to be microed.
What else are you going to do, macro them?


instead of the player with the better tactics. If i want a game where reflexes decide the outcome, i'll play a shooter.
I don't think we're playing the same game...



Not an excuse. Blizzard apparently managed to convince the people at Vivendi to give them as much time as they need, which is a useful skill in itself. Sure Vivendi might not have been as horrendous to work for as Atarigrames, but it's not like they let all devs take as much time as Blizzard either.

How is that a problem?


Bioware games have been quite buggy in the past.
When you're producing games that push 60+ hours on a full play-through, bugs are just kind of a fact of life.



Don't ignore WC3. Just because it's not the same series doesn't mean it took no time to make. ;)

I didn't. But I've been subsiding more on WoW and Bioware games than anything else to survive lately.

Shadow_Ferret
01-27-2010, 06:41 PM
Halo is a pale shadow of what it could have been. It pioneered nothing and popularized little.

Maybe so (although it popularized itself, creating an entire series of novels and comics), but that wasn't a point made by the dufus who wrote the article. He was complaining he couldn't figure it out and felt that justified making it overrated.

As I said, I don't play many games (unless my kids drag me in), but when Halo came out, I thought it was a step above in graphics and I thought the game engine was advanced in some regard. I mean, it's been what? 10 years since I read all the hype in the gamer mags?

defcon6000
01-27-2010, 07:34 PM
I would've put Madden a little higher up on the list; the name alone is a money whore. Never played FF and don't plan to (turn base games suck). CoD 4 wasn't set in WWII, which I think was part of its huge success, but I agree, stop with the WWII games!

Chris P
01-27-2010, 07:36 PM
Strip Poker

Or at least that's what the females I conned into playing think once they start to lose.

Lhun
02-01-2010, 07:53 PM
Then that's what people like to play, wouldn't you say.And your point is?

Oh really? What is a good strategy game then?Total War for example. Good or not has nothing to do with what is strategy and what isn't however.
I think that had more to do more with technology limits. Make two-thousand units on the battle-field and the PC slows to badness. Those sort of limits were there to help keep PC's from swamping under the numbers.That might have been true for Warcraft. And i would have bought it as an excuse for Warcraft 2. But for Starcraft or Warcraft 3 it is ridiculous. Besides, you are talking about a total limit of units on a map, i'm talking about a total limit of units that are selectable. Different thing.
What else are you going to do, macro them?Is this supposed to be a real question or just a wisecrack?
I don't think we're playing the same game...Shooter player, are you?

How is that a problem?Uh, try to go back and read again what my statements about this were?
When you're producing games that push 60+ hours on a full play-through, bugs are just kind of a fact of life.No, they aren't. Console RPGs tend to easily top PC RPGs in the playtime department, and they're virtually bug free, because they have to be. We put up with crap from software companies, we wouldn't suffer quietly from a cookie manufacturer for a product one-hundredth the price.
I didn't. But I've been subsiding more on WoW and Bioware games than anything else to survive lately.Never liked WoW, though that's a matter of preference. I played FFXI and EvE before giving up on MMORPGs alltogether. Though WC3 is still a typical Blizzard RTS, i wouldn't really see any difference between the next one being Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 4.:Shrug: I mean, i like them (played every one since Warcraft 1) but Starcraft vs. Warcraft? So what.

SPMiller
02-02-2010, 01:44 AM
PvP is one of th eleast strategic areas I could think of...Are we using different definitions of the word strategy or something? :Huh:

PvE was easily the least interesting part of the game. Oh, I just loved hitting trash and boss mobs with anger-inducing attacks so they wouldn't hit the dps/healers. Or moving around and spamming four or five keys to make a mob's green bar go down. Or clicking on people and trying to keep their green bars full. Week after week after week. Hoo-ray.

LOG
02-02-2010, 05:17 AM
And your point is?
I'm simply saying that your view of this seems to be in the minority. I see plenty of strategy in the Blizzard RTS games. Your interpretation may be different. I disliked the Total War series. Just because it's realistic doesn't mean it's a good game.


i'm talking about a total limit of units that are selectable. Different thing.
Not that different. The limit cap means that selecting a certain numbers of unis only makes sense. I also fail to see the problem with repairing units. It makes sense with machines, and when you're taling about magic. It's also a tool by which to conserve your resources for other things.


Is this supposed to be a real question or just a wisecrack?
Bit of both.


Shooter player, are you?
No. I see tactics. You see reflexes. Besides, why should reflexes not matter? You think that someone who wants to take all day to get ready is a fine example of 'tactics'? Blizzard introduced PvP in their games, and they didn't want their players taking hours to finish a match.


Console RPGs tend to easily top PC RPGs in the playtime department, and they're virtually bug free, because they have to be. We put up with crap from software companies, we wouldn't suffer quietly from a cookie manufacturer for a product one-hundredth the price.
It's easy to determine functionality for a console game because they all have the same specs. PC developers need to spend alot more time wroking to ensure that the game has as large a degree of playability as possible between high and low-tech rigs. This means there's less tim to work out those bugs. But they still need to produce inside a workable timeframe.


I played FFXI and EvE before giving up on MMORPGs alltogether.
No wonder you don't play them anymore...


Though WC3 is still a typical Blizzard RTS, i wouldn't really see any difference between the next one being Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 4.:Shrug: I mean, i like them (played every one since Warcraft 1) but Starcraft vs. Warcraft? So what.
Variety of function when it comes to using the different races. Blizzard RTS' tend to be about learning the ups and downs of what works best with each race against the next. Tech level, resource availability, race abilities, etc.

SPMiller
02-02-2010, 05:27 AM
How do you feel about the GCD in WoW that effectively removes the tactical advantages of twitch skill and low ping?

LOG
02-02-2010, 10:02 AM
How do you feel about the GCD in WoW that effectively removes the tactical advantages of twitch skill and low ping?
I don't mind it at all. It allows for a variety of abiltiies that need to be utilized wisely. It also prevents spamming of certain spells that would be OP if it were possible.

There are quite a few number of spells that are not on GCD.

DoomBunny
02-04-2010, 06:06 AM
Blizzard North never "really" existed since the people came from condor when it was bought by Blizzard. But the design team did Diablo 1 through 3, until a big part left BLizzard. Which seriously stalled Diablo 3 development and caused Blizzard to formally dissolve the Blizzard North division. The people from condor who are still with Blizzard work on WoW and Diablo 3. Call them Blizzards RPG team if you like.

Er, what? Just because they were rebranded doesn't mean they didn't exist. They closed long before Diablo 3, and most of the key members left to form Flagship Studios (Hellgate London). The few ex-North staff that remain with Blizzard are not the RPG gurus you seem to think they are - mostly audio and art people as I recall.


I could claim Final Fantasy games can't be boring or they wouldn't sell so well by the same line of reasoning.

Except that's not what I said. I didn't say it had strategy because it sold well - I said it wouldn't have lasted the way it has without it. I'm referring to replayability just as much as popularity. Any given scenario or map in Starcraft can play out many different ways with different players of equal skill. Different build orders, different upgrades, different combinations of units and tactics, planned collection and use of resources - that's what strategy is.

And that's aside from the fact I wasn't making an argument at all. I was telling you it has strategic depth, it's patently obvious and has been thoroughly demonstrated.


The only thing sale numbers prove is that the games are what people like to buy, which is not necessarily the same as what people like to play for 100 hours.

I'm glad you're here to tell us what we want. Neither of those points relate to each other or your argument. You can't just stick two opinions together and say 'voila!'.


And Starcraft still being played is, if anything, evidence of it not having strategic depth.

Again, these two opinions put together do not equal an argument. Let alone universal truth.


Blizzard RTS games are an unholy mush of real time tactics and arcade-style clickfest

I'm not sure how you play Starcraft or how you define 'tactics', but that's not particularly accurate at all. Starcraft plays much like any other RTS, with its own interface and more polish. The only PC RTS's that really differ from the formula are Total Annihalation and Supreme Commander (which are much the same thing anyway).


which is probably what appeals to so many people.

So everyone is dumb but you?


Calling it "strategy" though is violating that word.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means (Inigo Montoya FTW!).


Mostly the interface of every Blizzard RTS since Warcraft 1. For example the idiotic limit on the number of units you can keep selected at once. And special abilities that need to be microed. Limited production qeues. And don't get me started on repairing damaged units.

None of these things have anything to do with the interface, except that that's where they're displayed. These are elements of gameplay, not of interface. It sounds to me you're just looking for a game that isn't Starcraft. That's fine, but none of these arguments equate to a lack of strategy.


Blizzard apparently managed to convince the people at Vivendi to give them as much time as they need, which is a useful skill in itself. Sure Vivendi might not have been as horrendous to work for as Atarigrames, but it's not like they let all devs take as much time as Blizzard either.

It's not a useful skill, and they're not 'letting' them do any such thing. It's an essential policy that translates to a level of polish and quality unknown in the industry. We desperately need that level of creative and constructive freedom in the rest of the industry. Referring to Atari/Infogrames is disingenuous since they're totally different business models, with a totally different range of products and a totally different target demographic.


I have to disagree here. Although i'd say Bioware produces games that are even better than Blizzard games. I don't think i've played any game as many times as Baldur's gate. Except perhaps Star Ocean 3.

Your playtime does not equate to quality or popularity. You are not a significant sample of the market all on your own. And you can disagree all you want, but that won't change the fact that Blizzard and Bioware both make good games because they both have a degree of freedom and respect from the suits.

SPMiller
02-04-2010, 06:26 AM
There are quite a few number of spells that are not on GCD.Silences and interrupts, mostly (Kick, Pummel, Counterspell, Silence, Strangulate, Spell Lock, etc.), unless that has changed since I stopped playing. But then, they have to be off the GCD to actually be useful. Most other abilities are GCDed.

Lhun
02-06-2010, 04:40 PM
I'm simply saying that your view of this seems to be in the minority.Yes, and your point is? That popularity is a measure for quality? Then Stephanie Meyer is the best writer alive. Besides, what are you even doing in this thread? The very title says "overrated games". If popularity is what decides the quality of a game, there can be no such thing as an overrated game.

I see plenty of strategy in the Blizzard RTS games. Your interpretation may be different. I disliked the Total War series. Just because it's realistic doesn't mean it's a good game.See, i could bring up popularity here, but i won't. However realism doesn't enter into it. I suggest you find a handy online encyclopaedia and look up the definitions of tactics and strategy. You'll find that Blizzard games can not honestly be called strategy games, and the total war series can. Whether they're popular is a different issue. Whether they're good is a different issue.

Not that different. The limit cap means that selecting a certain numbers of unis only makes sense.Makes sense? As in selecting 12 units only makes sense because you simply cannot select more? Creative use of the word.
The difference is that limiting the number of units in the game at one time limits the strain on the computer. Limiting the number of units you can select at one time does nothing of the sort.

I also fail to see the problem with repairing units. It makes sense with machines, and when you're taling about magic. It's also a tool by which to conserve your resources for other things.The problem is not the repairing, but the implementation. If you remember, i was saying the UI is terrible, not the game is terrible.
Bit of both.Then i'll just do a bit of both assuming you can answer it yourself and ignoring the wisecrack.

No. I see tactics. You see reflexes.I see that reflexes are required to implement tactics.

Besides, why should reflexes not matter? You think that someone who wants to take all day to get ready is a fine example of 'tactics'? Blizzard introduced PvP in their games, and they didn't want their players taking hours to finish a match.There are many and various ways of managing the same without requiring the unholy clickfest that Blizzard inflicts upon players.

It's easy to determine functionality for a console game because they all have the same specs. PC developers need to spend alot more time wroking to ensure that the game has as large a degree of playability as possible between high and low-tech rigs. This means there's less tim to work out those bugs. But they still need to produce inside a workable timeframe.Curiously, not all bugs are hardware related. Hell, i'd bet it's not even the majority. Game producers simply do the same thing Microsoft does (...Microsoft invented) public betatesting. Because PC software can be patched, software companies very quickly noticed that they didn't need to release bug-free games, since letting the customers find the last few bugs is much easier and cheaper as long as one balances cost savings and reputation correctly. Or has a monopoly.

No wonder you don't play them anymore...Really? And why would that be? I'm honestly curious, because if i did start playing MMORPGs again, i'd pick up FFXI again.

Variety of function when it comes to using the different races. Blizzard RTS' tend to be about learning the ups and downs of what works best with each race against the next. Tech level, resource availability, race abilities, etc.Yes, though i don't see a difference between the WC and SC franchise here either.

LOG
02-06-2010, 08:44 PM
Yes, and your point is? That popularity is a measure for quality? Then Stephanie Meyer is the best writer alive. Besides, what are you even doing in this thread? The very title says "overrated games". If popularity is what decides the quality of a game, there can be no such thing as an overrated game.
The article isn't about bad games. It's about games that the author thinks are played too often despite their lackluster compared to other games. FF and Halo are fun games, just not really that good. The list obviously favors series heavy games. FF, Resident Evil, Pokemon etc. Seems to me it's more about games that are over-done.


See, i could bring up popularity here, but i won't. However realism doesn't enter into it. I suggest you find a handy online encyclopaedia and look up the definitions of tactics and strategy. You'll find that Blizzard games can not honestly be called strategy games, and the total war series can. Whether they're popular is a different issue. Whether they're good is a different issue.
Tactics: The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy (Using the height advantag eoffered by a plateau to set up a ghost under cloak and then use his nuke. Kiting enemy units across a bridge so that you can cast Rain of Fire to a greater affect. Blizzard RTS aren't incredibly technical like others, that's part of their appeal.)
Strategy: The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations. (Specializing in higher technology units rather than massing them for their abilities.



Makes sense? As in selecting 12 units only makes sense because you simply cannot select more? Creative use of the word.
The difference is that limiting the number of units in the game at one time limits the strain on the computer. Limiting the number of units you can select at one time does nothing of the sort.
When you can make less than a hundred units at best, why would you need the abilit to select them all at once. That's my point.


I see that reflexes are required to implement tactics.
There are many and various ways of managing the same without requiring the unholy clickfest that Blizzard inflicts upon players.
I've never considered Blizzard games a clickfest. Or rather, the amount of clicking I do is not an issue for me.


Curiously, not all bugs are hardware related. Hell, i'd bet it's not even the majority. Game producers simply do the same thing Microsoft does (...Microsoft invented) public betatesting. Because PC software can be patched, software companies very quickly noticed that they didn't need to release bug-free games, since letting the customers find the last few bugs is much easier and cheaper as long as one balances cost savings and reputation correctly. Or has a monopoly.
I have no issue with that. Most bugs tend to be minor. As long as they can be fixed within a reasonable amount of time, I have no problem.



Really? And why would that be? I'm honestly curious, because if i did start playing MMORPGs again, i'd pick up FFXI again.
I don't think much of those two MMO's.

Lhun
02-06-2010, 11:24 PM
The article isn't about bad games. It's about games that the author thinks are played too often despite their lackluster compared to other games. FF and Halo are fun games, just not really that good. The list obviously favors series heavy games. FF, Resident Evil, Pokemon etc. Seems to me it's more about games that are over-done.Yes, i believe i just pointed out that we are talking about games that are rated higher than they deserve. So are you just repeating my point for emphasis or do i misunderstand?
That the list focuses on series is easily explained by the article being about overrated franchises actually, not overrated single games.
<snip>Strategy: The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations. (Specializing in higher technology units rather than massing them for their abilities.The emphasis here is on large scale operations. Because i'm afraid you've picked two definitions which don't really help at establishing the differences. To put it shortly though, tactics are usually defined as (military) actions taken to reach an immediate goal, while strategy is the planning connecting said short-term goals to overall success. Put another way, tactics deal with whatever happenes during a single battle, strategy deals with everything larger in scope. Deciding wether to go for a zergling rush or to turtle and build up is not a strategic decision. Except when deriving your definition of "strategy" from game theory: "distinct course of action a player can take to win a game". That definition however includes pretty much everything. Halo would be a strategy game, since you can choose which gun you'll mainly use to play through. Hell, every game more complicated than Space Invaders is a strategy game according to that definition, so i'd say it's a pretty safe bet that strategy when used in reference to computer games is supposed to be the military term, not the one from game theory.
A game which ends after about an hour (or less) is a tactical game not a strategic one. Since we're talking about Blizzard games all the time, WoW can be perfect counterexample to *craft long-term planning, such as choosing a character build is a strategic issue.

When you can make less than a hundred units at best, why would you need the abilit to select them all at once. That's my point.And my point is that it's just bad form to make that decision for a player. Maybe i do want to select them all at once. Maybe i don't. There's no technical reason nor any gameplay reason to force me to manage more than one group made up of identical units at once. A UI is supposed to make it as easy and convenient as possible to convey your intentions to your game pieces. It is not supposed to dictate to you how to play a game. That's like limiting the volume dial on a 500W stereo to 100w output and asking why would you need it to be any louder?

I've never considered Blizzard games a clickfest. Or rather, the amount of clicking I do is not an issue for me.Ah, those are two very different things. It's not an issue for me either, but i do recognize a clickfest even if it doesn't bother me.

I have no issue with that. Most bugs tend to be minor. As long as they can be fixed within a reasonable amount of time, I have no problem.Many publishers/developers, heck probably most of them, don't release games that are problematically buggy. (but i'm looking at you Atarigrames) And actual gamebreaking bugs in a release version are rare. And catastrophical for a game series' reputation.
Heck, if it makes games cheaper i don't mind putting up with the random graphics glitch, memory leak or even CTD for a few weeks. That i don't mind it doesn't mean i buy the "too complicated to be bugfree" excuse though. Heck, even if there weren't console games to compare to, we've been talking about Blizzard all this time and they're the living, prospering proof that it is far from impossible to release bug-free code and still make a profit.

I don't think much of those two MMO's.Yes, that's what i read into your post. I love(d) FFXI though, and Eve had its moments. Heck, i recognize that WoW is one excellent MMORPG, though i wouldn't pay for it since i personally dislike it. Though Blizzard might actually get me hooked on MMORPGs again if they ever make a Diablo one. Not sure i could resist that.

LOG
02-07-2010, 03:27 AM
Diablo, as an MMO?
I don't think that's a bad idea so much as it's an un-necessary one. Diablo games already allow for co-op.

I think LOTRO, DDO, AoC(right now), WoW, and WAR are some of the better MMO's. I especially like how in LOTRO you get a free-roaming feel, but are still actually working within a story-like structure.

Lhun
02-07-2010, 07:28 PM
Diablo, as an MMO?
I don't think that's a bad idea so much as it's an un-necessary one. Diablo games already allow for co-op.Well, the Battle.net play of Diablo 2 (and presumably 3) is not exactly MMO-like. It's more like the random deathmatches you get with shooters. I'd like to see Diablo with a persistent world and quests that require cooperation. Not as a replacement of course, as a seperate game. Because so far, battle.net play in diablo is pretty much just grinding. You go and kill monsters in a team because it's faster, either for loot or XP or both. You're doing pretty much the same as in SP, just more efficiently. Blizzard has introduced some extremely hard bosses in the late patches for Diablo 2 which are designed to be taken down by (good) parties only, and they're awesome. I'd love to see what they could do if they'd design those as a major part of a game, not as a gimmick.

I think LOTRO, DDO, AoC(right now), WoW, and WAR are some of the better MMO's. I especially like how in LOTRO you get a free-roaming feel, but are still actually working within a story-like structure.Well, i think in the case of MMOs it's mostly a matter of taste. There seem to be few actually bad MMOs which is hardly surprising since they're pay-to-play unlike normal games where players will only get pissed of with a bad game after forking over the money.