|
|
On September 13 2016 04:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Are playing 1v1 games truly more stressful? Afterall nobody says that playing tennis or badminton or even table tennis is inherently more stressful than other team based sports. In team based sports, people generally do not blame their team mates as a relieve from stress either. Ultimately, I think the cause of ladder anxiety is simply that the SC2 isn't fun or social enough to overcome the lack of sociability they desire.
Hearthstone is popular beyond reason and it 1v1. What makes SC2 and other RTS games stressful is the lack of information about your opponent, that the games punishes mistakes harshly and the victory conditions often require the player to quit out of the match themselves. The games focus on the harshest aspects of competition and provide zero learning tools worth talking about. It a lot of ways, RTS games hate the player in 1v1. Some people enjoy that stuff, many more do not and play other games.
|
On September 14 2016 01:18 Grumbels wrote:
These concepts can probably be defined more sharply though. For instance by separating some sort of descriptive analysis of the gameplay from various types of psychological experiences. What I will say is that in SC2 you can not easily play cooperatively by virtue of 1 vs 1 being the only refined game mode, while MOBAs allow both cooperative and competitive approaches. If one looks at the experience of a typical player I think both WCIII and BW also allowed for more cooperation because of the UMS / team mode popularity.
Yes, those are some of the things that made SC/WC3 overall more "fun" games than SC2.
Regarding the rest of the discussion in topic... it's tiring trying to have a real conversation with some people who convince themselves of nonsense & justifications based on heresay.
The truth is, RTS game quality has dropped significantly in the last 12 years. Nearly every one tries to go in a new direction and "pave the way" similar to how WC3 has, and it has not been successful. SC2's change of direction in units & economy were never well accepted. Even series such as DoW do well for awhile then lose their path, same thing with homeworld series, etc. The social features were lost. The custom map system had some improvements but just as many mistakes.
No matter how much you claim it's all about money or whatever excuses that come to mind, the PLAYERS know (and regularly express the sentiment) of how RTS games have declined in quality. Some people claim the decline is because of "less money in the genre", but players know the decline is in QUALITY.
I have no problem spending my own money on a solid RTS. But there's no way in hell SC2 is getting any more money out of me without higher quality. I would not have even bought LotV if I did not preorder before they shifted gears and removed everything they worked towards in beta.
The fact that so many players are returning to BW, is a clear indication that there's still RTS players that want a solid game.
The fact that LotV outpaced sales of the rest of the series shows there's still players who want a solid game.
The insane cliff of population of LotV from release to even 1 month after release, shows how players really feel about the game.
The fact that so many checked out Atlas - which is pretty much an indie game - shows there's still RTS players that want a solid game.
The fact that Blizz is attempting to revive BW, shows they know there's still fans, and the money is still there. It also shows they are AWARE that BW was considered the peak of their offerings in the genre - NOT SC2!
And Blizzard has never stated there's no money in RTS, and has discussed future RTS. The time where they announce a new one is coming, and will finally be a nail in the coffin for all the BS nonsense I've heard over and over for the last year about Blizzard & Rob Pardo and RTS profitability, bla bla bla... Been hearing those tired excuses since before LotV was released. Which even then did not make sense... as they were actively working on the game at the time... and since then have released DLC packs (because developers want to spend dev time on something that they don't believe is going to make money, right...)
Truth of the matter is, everyone from my childhood would get together and play BW. They are all looking fwd to BW revival. And they all can not STAND SC2. They all follow every RTS that comes along the line to see if it's actually decent (Atlas included). That's a common sentiment in the gaming community in general. That speaks volumes for the state of modern RTS's. It's a quality issue, not a profitability issue. Noone is going to buy a game they don't enjoy.... and no amount of technology or whatever BS it's getting blamed on is going to make people pay for something they don't enjoy.
|
there are also lots of handy 1v1 games that are really popular. Some strategy ones as well. They are mostly short duration ones if there is constant action. Longer games usually have just a few actionspikes and the rest of the game is usually not stress inducing. Team game or not doesn't really seem to matter, apart from the pack pressure players. (people that play the game because of friends, which nowadays is a huge amount).
What fails are the 15+ minute games with constant action. It is to exhausting for people that don't train their mind and body to be used to that kind of stress. And there are enough other good games you can go to.
Grand strategy/4x games are also 1v, usually alot more 1s though. But they have enough breaks in between the action.
One reason why I prefer WoL over HotS and especially LotV. They tried to crunch the game time to a constant minimum, but now there are no breaks where you can recover as you get forced forward into the enemy. But I am biased towards a defensive playstyle, so it may just be that.
To get a bit more on topic. In Atlas, you have alot of those downtimes, where you can grind or sit back a litte, but they also force you to fight when the Titans come out. Which didn't help Heroes alot, but they got branded as a moba and you don't want to be compared to 1 of the top 5 multiplayer games lol. So I guess its positiv that the discussion is more based around rts games.
|
On September 14 2016 01:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 04:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Are playing 1v1 games truly more stressful? Afterall nobody says that playing tennis or badminton or even table tennis is inherently more stressful than other team based sports. In team based sports, people generally do not blame their team mates as a relieve from stress either. Ultimately, I think the cause of ladder anxiety is simply that the SC2 isn't fun or social enough to overcome the lack of sociability they desire. Hearthstone is popular beyond reason and it 1v1. What makes SC2 and other RTS games stressful is the lack of information about your opponent, that the games punishes mistakes harshly and the victory conditions often require the player to quit out of the match themselves. The games focus on the harshest aspects of competition and provide zero learning tools worth talking about. It a lot of ways, RTS games hate the player in 1v1. Some people enjoy that stuff, many more do not and play other games.
single player and 1v1 games do fine in environments where that is the only choice from a technical perspective. u can't play a 10 player low latency combat game on your phone. you can play Hearthstone though.
as soon as the possibility for team games with low latency arises the consumer choice widens and plenty of people forced to play 1v1 or single player choose themselves out of the market.
once DOTA was technically viable far fewer people played WC3 1v1s and single player content and far more people chose DOTA.
it was a smart move by Artillery to avoid 1v1 on PC because on PC there are many technically viable options that take you beyond the 1v1 or single player experience.
a 1v1 game on a smart phone or tablet is a whole other market and is still viable and vibrant.
On September 14 2016 02:13 Spyridon wrote:
The fact that LotV outpaced sales of the rest of the series shows there's still players who want a solid game.
WoL outsold LotV by a wide margin. ATVI created all kinds of marketing tactics to induce LotV pre-orders taht were not present with HotS. For example, the who buy now and get the Prologue campaign missions that are playable the second you pre-order. It was some nice work by the marketing geniuses at ATVI that made LotV outsell HotS via the Single Player Campaign.
The fact that no one bothered to make another C&C or AoE game along with Sigaty's comments that "nothing we make will compete with SC2 for 10 years" tells you that the big budget RTS is as extinct as teh dinosaur.
No one is increasing their investment in RTS... its either staying the same or going down.
You can play low budget cash-grabs like Grey Goo or Act of Aggression, but the player base is so small that Automatch is not viable.
CoH1 and CoH2 are still solid many years after release. CoH1 is a game that should've sold millions in a high demand market. Its long term staying power proves objectively its a great game. It didn't. THQ put it on sale for $1 to get the game to hit 0.5 Million units sold. Relic did a great job on the game though and can be proud of the great work they did. The demand, however, just is not there.
|
On September 14 2016 03:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
WoL outsold LotV by a wide margin. ATVI created all kinds of marketing tactics to induce LotV pre-orders taht were not present with HotS. For example, the who buy now and get the Prologue campaign missions that are playable the second you pre-order. It was some nice work by the marketing geniuses at ATVI that made LotV outsell HotS via the Single Player Campaign.
Is it possible for you to respond to something I say without bending my words to imply something I never implied?
I said outpaced. Not outsold.
But on that topic, the fact that more and more players didn't come back for later iterations, goes to show weakened interest in the franchise as well. Other Blizz games get restored to earlier levels (See WoW right now - in the MMO genre which has been declining in sales rapidly as well).
Your assumption based on Sigatys comments make no sense either. Blizz said they don't want to compete with themselves, and gave a time table. That means once that time table is up they will be open for creating another one. They would have said they aren't going to make another (period) if that was their plan. Why would they give a specific date if they had no plans in the future?
Again, you already know this, but Blizz themselves has mentioned multiple times in different interviews about future RTS's. You have been told this many times. You ignore this.
Besides, Team 1 has been actively developing something at Blizzard again that is unannounced. You know... Team 1... their RTS division....
You also ignore the point of my entire post, which was expressing that RTS games have been much lower reviewed, and much lower reception, than past ones.
CoH was fun. But marketed completely wrong, and it's very hard to market a historical war game that is not casual. History buffs are usually not hardcore gamers. And I would say CoH was a solid 8/10, in no way better than that.
You seem to forget that AoE's reviews & reception went down the drain before they stopped development as well.
And your 1v1 comments... you do know fighting games have been making a resurgence, right? Even with SF5's relatively low sales compared to 4 (which was because of no arcade release), the genre as a whole has been making a comeback. And investment has not exactly been increased either, look at KoF with it's trashy visuals, yet it's blowing up in the tournament/arcade scene. What has been the result of that? More investment, because the GAME had a GOOD RECEPTION, which in turn made it do well.
Which shows it's possible to make good games without huge investment. Investment doesnt really correlate to a good game, most of the time investment indicates focus on production value rather than gameplay, and too much of that will end up a failure.
You even contradict yourself, you say theres no money left, then you talk about a few RTS as "low budget cash grabs". So their grabbing the cash that you claim isn't there....?
But I'm sure you will still not be convinced. We're at an impasse. I believe it's very clear that the problem is RTS quality has declined and been lacking for the last 10 years. You believe it's because there's declining amounts of investment/money spent by customers because of "technical capabilities".
It makes me wonder if your trolling, because it's pretty clear that if there's less people spending money & less investment is directly related to the declining quality. It's not like there's been loads of games that have been universally acclaimed, yet people simply haven't bought it. There's been loads of games that have disappointed and repelled gamers, reviews dropping each iteration, and players were forced to move on.
Declining reviews is not the result of technology improvements. And you will still see the surge of gamers looking for a good RTS every time a new RTS comes along, only to be let down again.
You seem to have a background with watching their business tactics, but I have a background in software development as well as game design, and on that front I can let you know that your tech claims are wrong. Because RTS's were so optimized (even in the 90's) that they were one of the most optimized genres out there, despite many units. Many units only makes it misleading, as you mainly only need to communicate the inputs rather than positions of every unit. And you don't even need 3D coordinates, so your sending very little data each click...
Even SC1 prior to BW was able to support this type of format, do you really not remember 8man games prior to 2000 on dialup?? And MOBA are more optimized with 10 players than 8v8 FFA gameplay of an RTS... You needed better technology to support 8v8 FFA.
Diablo 2 was way more demanding than a 5v5 moba as well.
The major difference was SC/BW (and bnet as a whole) was a complete social experience back then, and bnet 2.0 was less social from the beginning, and even this many years in, still is missing much of what made bnet 1.0 special. Without P2P and limits on hosting, even in best case scenarios, map developers were crippled and better off using a game engine (I went through the same scenario).
You just seem completely out of touch. You only talk about profitability & glorify Blizzard/other RTS developers questionable decisions, but don't seem to understand the mentality of gamers, the reasons for the declining reviews, the reason for unrest in the RTS community, or what the majority of gamers really want (or are even looking for). Which is basically the same problem EA & Activision has had for the last 10 years - being completely out of touch (a problem that even their employees have complained about). Do you happen to be an employee as well? That would explain a lot....
|
Thanks spyridon for fighting the battle that none of us really want to, but has to be done. :D
|
Katowice25012 Posts
It's pretty entertaining so I'm glad this thread exists. You're the best spyridon.
|
On September 14 2016 09:03 B-royal wrote:
Thanks spyridon for fighting the battle that none of us really want to, but has to be done. :D
rofl.. true words.
I don't want to waste my time but god is it frustrating to read that illogical apologetic garbage for so long... Shocked that someone can be so sensational that he believes what he is saying.
I'm sticking with the "employee" theory. Would explain the obsession with Blizzard developers.
|
Jimmy is well known for drinking his own Koolaid.
|
On September 14 2016 06:53 Spyridon wrote:
You just seem completely out of touch. You only talk about profitability & glorify Blizzard/other RTS developers questionable decisions, but don't seem to understand the mentality of gamers, the reasons for the declining reviews, the reason for unrest in the RTS community, or what the majority of gamers really want (or are even looking for). Which is basically the same problem EA & Activision has had for the last 10 years - being completely out of touch (a problem that even their employees have complained about). Do you happen to be an employee as well? That would explain a lot....
oh, i'm in touch.
Developers don't get worse at making games in a genre they get better.
CoH1 was a really great game and it took a $1 sale by THQ to make it hit 0.5 million sales. C&C and AoE are gone. Long standing franchises with long standing IP and they are left to rot.
RTS fans are bored... and i've explained why...
while the RTS games were bad in the early and mid-90s the genre flourished due to the buzz of watching dozens of units kill each other simultaneously. A few years earlier it was not technically possible on consumer level hardware. All that action and explosions and screaming.. it was great stuff.
but that was 20 years ago.. now i can do that on my smart phone and tablet playing Mobile Strike.
improvements in hardware give rise to new genres. this started with Space Invaders replacing Pong. Continued improvements give consumers more choices and they reject perfectly fun games like Space Invaders to play Galaga or Pacman or Pole Position. So the improvements in hardware and computing power have the ability to kill a genre due to giving consumers additional choice. The Gallery Shooter ( Space Invaders game type ) is still fun, but you won't see a Gallery Shooter ever be the centrepiece of some new AAA game. The interest is no longer there because consumers have new choices.
RTS is going the way of the Gallery Shooter, the dot-eating-maze game and the Text Adventure game.
all these game types still exist. but none of them recieve top notch level investment from major publishers. we will continue to see low budget RTS games like Grey Goo.
ATVI can smell consumer demand from 1000 miles away like its horse-shit. if the demand for new RTS games were there Blizzard would be working on a new $60 full release game right now. and guess what? they are not.
money drives the industry not forum posts.
|
I don't care enough to respond to everything but developers clearly do not automatically get better at creating games.
If that were the case any new iteration of FIFA would be better than the previous one.
News flash, they aren't (I've never played any FIFA games but this sprung to mind) http://www.redbull.com/en/games/stories/1331707525250/the-best-fifa-games-ever-as-voted-by-you
If it were the case, CIV5 would have been a better game than CIV4 BTS at launch. It isn't.
If it were the case, civilization beyond earth would have been better than alpha centauri. It isn't.
If it were the case, age of empires 3 would have been better than AoE 2. It isn't
If it were the case, Sc2 would have been better than BW. It isn't.
So please stop claiming this bullshit.
No serious gamer wants to play an RTS on a fucking tablet. The controls are horrible meaning there's ZERO potential for depth related to micro/macro.
If warcraft 4 would be announced tomorrow and the game would NOT be a fucking disappointment, you can bet your life it will sell like CRAZY.
|
Can we talk about this game or be damned ?
|
I think people also need to accept that personal tastes factors into games. I understand why people like Civ 4, but I like Civ 5 a lot more.
That and developers are not game making factories, they are creative by nature. They don’t want to churn out the same thing over and over with mild improvements. They want to do new things, take out things they didn’t like about the last game, add features they think will be interesting.
On September 14 2016 22:23 Samcai wrote:
Can we talk about this game or be damned ?
Any thread about RTS games on TL is the place where people go to grumble about the last 20+ years of games like old men talking about how they don't make movies like they used to.
|
On September 14 2016 22:17 B-royal wrote:
I don't care enough to respond to everything but developers clearly do not automatically get better at creating games.
not automatically. the good developers systematically get better at learning from their mistakes. the first entry in a new genre is often notably bad. the first RTS games were god awful and yet the genre grew any way... it was the buzz of all that multi-tasking and non-stop frantic action.
FIFA was terrible and it improved enough to compete with Winning 11 and eventually become the standard. EAs NHL '92 was just another game. 3 versions later it became the standard.
Because EA has such short timelines sometimes studios must release a half made game so sometimes the games do get "worse". usually its just a half-made game though. give the studio the Blizzard thing of "release when its ready" and it'll improve a lot more often.
When Morhaime graduated from university there was no such thing as a "Video Game Design" Academic Program. Now there is. From a distant macro perspective this is why games in general are getting better and games within genres are improving.
On September 14 2016 22:23 Samcai wrote:
Can we talk about this game or be damned ?
At least the debate keeps Artillery's name high up on the TL left side bar 
Artillery rented Grubby 12 days ago to boost the popularity of teh game 2 weekends go.
Artillery sponsored a tourney 5 days ago to boost the popularity of teh game last weekend.
any ideas what Artillery has up their sleeves this upcoming friday to drum up some additional interest?
|
Personally I have long beleived that he is a friend or relative of an employee. Explains his gross fixation and his preference for explaining game design choices as that "XYZ person is a genius".
|
developers streaming at 5PM EDT or 2PM PDT providing an overview of the weekly GoA patch
|
I know I'm late to the party but they need to address the situation with Day9. The only reason I sporadically checked on the progress of this game is because of him. Now, the sudden and unexplained leave of Day9 makes me hesitant to even test the game, which I surely would have done if Day9 promoted it.
I can't speak for other people, but they might be losing out on a lot of potential customers by keeping this behind closed doors.
|
yeah man up and spill the story!
|
On September 14 2016 22:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 22:17 B-royal wrote:
I don't care enough to respond to everything but developers clearly do not automatically get better at creating games.
not automatically. the good developers systematically get better at learning from their mistakes. the first entry in a new genre is often notably bad. the first RTS games were god awful and yet the genre grew any way... it was the buzz of all that multi-tasking and non-stop frantic action. FIFA was terrible and it improved enough to compete with Winning 11 and eventually become the standard. EAs NHL '92 was just another game. 3 versions later it became the standard. Because EA has such short timelines sometimes studios must release a half made game so sometimes the games do get "worse". usually its just a half-made game though. give the studio the Blizzard thing of "release when its ready" and it'll improve a lot more often. When Morhaime graduated from university there was no such thing as a "Video Game Design" Academic Program. Now there is. From a distant macro perspective this is why games in general are getting better and games within genres are improving.
Wow, you really showed you have no idea what your talking about.
First off, "good developers" are look good musicians, usually they are never able to reach their peak again. You talk about Pardo all the time, and he has declining reviews release after release. Same thing happened with so many others in the business. Mark Jacobs, Jaffee, Pearson, even the legends at Nintendo. What about "Flagship Studios"? How about the entire Blizzard north team? How many of them have found continued success at the levels Blizzard had...?
There's very few exceptions - even Kojima has went down - although that may be due to issues with Konami.
But as I said, I'm a software developer myself, and I have experience in game design. It's in no way true that developers get "better". Game design is very inconsistent, and it's all about how the design comes together in the end. Just because you designed an amazing game does not mean you can design ANY other games that will be even remotely accepted.
The original RTS? People didn't even understand the concept of multitasking...
Fifa was terrible??? Complete lie. The first Fifa game was well known for revolutioning the sports genre. It's mechanics led to NBA Live, NHL (which you mention), and basically every EA sports property being modified to match Fifa's.
You mention the Blizzard thing? You forget that even Blizzard doesn't do that anymore. They made huge changes with only 2 weeks of testing before release, which led to LotV release with some of the worst balance in SC history. They said the game was not going to be out until 2016 - that was a lie they released early. They said it was going to be the longest beta ever for their RTS - that was a lie it was the same length as Heart of the Swarm beta.
And now your talking about video game universities?? News flash, I've visited them. I lived right near Full Sail when I lived in Florida. One of my good friends went for his masters there, and who also attended DigiPen. He still comes to me when he has development questions - after earning his MASTERS he is still not ready for active development.
You do realize, in the gaming industry, they tend to AVOID students who went to school for game design? They have a bad reputation, since the courses are so intense and have low quality control, they come in thinking they know everything but don't know how to work in a real life situation. The best you can hope for at those schools is making some connections with the professors and getting an internship (which were all unpaid).
Gaming schools are a well known fraud. Just do some research.
The gaming industry does not even accept gaming scholarships, they require a bachelors+ in computer science, or even more appealing if they have a bachelors+ in mathematics. You know what position the masters in game development earned? The best one was QA testing. Now after years of not being able to find a job with Full Sail Masters, or DigiPen experience, he has decided to become a professor.
Game developers are also notoriously protective of their positions at their job. This is because the business itself is unstable, and success only lasts as long as the current iteration of the current game. This is common knowledge in the industry. Ray Muzyka (who was at Full Sail when I visited) expressed to us that BioWare was founded for this reason. They tried finding jobs as designers but were unable to get a job due to the old developers protecting their position and strong-arming them out. He actually said "in order to become a game designer, we had to become doctors to be able to afford it". That's where the name "BioWare" comes from, btw.
Please, don't talk about things you have no experience or familiarity with. It doesn't prove your point or make you look knowledgeable. It just insults the people trying to have a discussion with you who do have experience.
|
new patch notes for Guardians of Atlas are up.
https://forums.artillery.com/discussion/905/build-240
On September 14 2016 06:53 Spyridon wrote:
I said outpaced. Not outsold.
no it did not. Here is the Blizzard press release about WoL.
" Wings of Liberty(TM) achieved a day-one sales milestone of more than 1 million copies sold worldwide, making it the best-selling PC game of 2010 within its first 24 hours of availability.* The game went on to sell a total of more than 1.5 million copies in its first 48 hours, setting the record for fastest-selling strategy game of all time.*"
all this inflammatory rhetoric about me misinterpreting your words and it turns out your facts are incorrect.
On September 15 2016 09:00 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 22:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 14 2016 22:17 B-royal wrote:
I don't care enough to respond to everything but developers clearly do not automatically get better at creating games.
not automatically. the good developers systematically get better at learning from their mistakes. the first entry in a new genre is often notably bad. the first RTS games were god awful and yet the genre grew any way... it was the buzz of all that multi-tasking and non-stop frantic action. FIFA was terrible and it improved enough to compete with Winning 11 and eventually become the standard. EAs NHL '92 was just another game. 3 versions later it became the standard. Because EA has such short timelines sometimes studios must release a half made game so sometimes the games do get "worse". usually its just a half-made game though. give the studio the Blizzard thing of "release when its ready" and it'll improve a lot more often. When Morhaime graduated from university there was no such thing as a "Video Game Design" Academic Program. Now there is. From a distant macro perspective this is why games in general are getting better and games within genres are improving. Wow, you really showed you have no idea what your talking about. First off, "good developers" are look good musicians, usually they are never able to reach their peak again. You talk about Pardo all the time, and he has declining reviews release after release. Same thing happened with so many others in the business. Mark Jacobs, Jaffee, Pearson, even the legends at Nintendo. What about "Flagship Studios"? How about the entire Blizzard north team? How many of them have found continued success at the levels Blizzard had...? There's very few exceptions - even Kojima has went down - although that may be due to issues with Konami. But as I said, I'm a software developer myself, and I have experience in game design. It's in no way true that developers get "better". Game design is very inconsistent, and it's all about how the design comes together in the end. Just because you designed an amazing game does not mean you can design ANY other games that will be even remotely accepted. The original RTS? People didn't even understand the concept of multitasking... Fifa was terrible??? Complete lie. The first Fifa game was well known for revolutioning the sports genre. It's mechanics led to NBA Live, NHL (which you mention), and basically every EA sports property being modified to match Fifa's. You mention the Blizzard thing? You forget that even Blizzard doesn't do that anymore. They made huge changes with only 2 weeks of testing before release, which led to LotV release with some of the worst balance in SC history. They said the game was not going to be out until 2016 - that was a lie they released early. They said it was going to be the longest beta ever for their RTS - that was a lie it was the same length as Heart of the Swarm beta. And now your talking about video game universities?? News flash, I've visited them. I lived right near Full Sail when I lived in Florida. One of my good friends went for his masters there, and who also attended DigiPen. He still comes to me when he has development questions - after earning his MASTERS he is still not ready for active development. You do realize, in the gaming industry, they tend to AVOID students who went to school for game design? They have a bad reputation, since the courses are so intense and have low quality control, they come in thinking they know everything but don't know how to work in a real life situation. The best you can hope for at those schools is making some connections with the professors and getting an internship (which were all unpaid). Gaming schools are a well known fraud. Just do some research. The gaming industry does not even accept gaming scholarships, they require a bachelors+ in computer science, or even more appealing if they have a bachelors+ in mathematics. You know what position the masters in game development earned? The best one was QA testing. Now after years of not being able to find a job with Full Sail Masters, or DigiPen experience, he has decided to become a professor. Game developers are also notoriously protective of their positions at their job. This is because the business itself is unstable, and success only lasts as long as the current iteration of the current game. This is common knowledge in the industry. Ray Muzyka (who was at Full Sail when I visited) expressed to us that BioWare was founded for this reason. They tried finding jobs as designers but were unable to get a job due to the old developers protecting their position and strong-arming them out. He actually said "in order to become a game designer, we had to become doctors to be able to afford it". That's where the name "BioWare" comes from, btw. Please, don't talk about things you have no experience or familiarity with. It doesn't prove your point or make you look knowledgeable. It just insults the people trying to have a discussion with you who do have experience.
Game design has improved since 1980 because of the experiences of the past 35 years. Game design will continue to improve over the next 35 years as the subject is studied in greater and greater depth.
guys like Nolan Bushnell, David Crane, Bob Whitehead and Daniel Buntin were good, but they were basically electrical engineers and computer scientists starting from scratch. Comp Sci. and Elec. Eng were the only fields designers could come from.
Now game designers can come from many varied and different fields. As a result, game design is better than it was because there is a vastly larger talent pool from which to draw.
Video Game Design will continue to evolve and improve as the industry continues to attract top notch talent who can now make the kind of big money that David Crane could never even conceive of.
regarding EA v. Konami in Soccer games. i don't "lie". i might be mistaken. but i don't lie. there is no need to inflame the discussion. Konami was king for a long time and EA improved their FIFA games and took over.
EA v. Konami in Soccer Games
http://onlinegaming.community/a-history-of-soccer-video-games-part-2/
"In reality, Konami looked at EA’s first appearence on a next gen console with FIFA 2001, laughed and then absolutely blew it out of the water."
I think i`m going to create a blog post about the history of video game design and we can continue this debate in there if you wish. We have derailed this thread enough. I`m done debating this topic in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
