Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What do you look for in a computer game?

Tags:
  • Computers
  • Games
  • Font
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 20, 2001 7:49:08 PM

I have to admit I never go out just to buy a computer game. When I'm browsing in the shops (no, that doesn't make me a woman), If I find something I like I buy it, providing it doesn't have a ridiculous pricetag i.e. £44.99.

<font color=purple><b>Reality in a box:</b></font color=purple>
Amongst the games I own a vast number of them are of the "simulation" variety. I put the word simulation in quotes, because if you actually believe those things are simulating anything, well... you need to go out more often. The list includes games all the way from Microprose F15 Eagle III and MiG-29 to Janes F15 and Eurofighter Typhoon. I even own a Suncom F15 Talon Joystick. I pain an arm and a leg for it a quite few years back. The other day I was playing Janes F15 - "the most accurate simulation" and I just thought... 'hold on, is this really fun? This is crap.' Sometimes I do enjoy playing these games, but mostly they're as boring as hell. I just somehow convince myself that they're fun. You also have to master a 300 page manual before you even install the game. Almost makes me wanna say - I wanna play asteroids.

<font color=purple><b>OK... so maybe I know a bit about physics</b></font color=purple>
I also was playing Collin Mcrae Rally. That game isn't so "realistic" but it can be enjoyable. It can also be damn fustrating. When you hit a signpost or a sponsor boards on the roadside, the stupid car comes to a instant bloody halt. what the hell is that about? I mean, hey I don't go crashing into things when I drive but I'm sure if I did, I would go through a piece of damn card board. OK, so I'm not a huge fan of racing sims, but that is just rubbish.

<font color=purple><b>Go forth my minions and wreak total havoc</b></font color=purple>
I liked red alert 2. Unlike its predecessor and others of the genre, the units didn't mistake a simple command of - walk a straight line from A to B - as go half way across the map and wander around in enemy territory. But there wasn't enough content. The game finished too quickly. Perhaps I just enjoy these games cause I get immersed into building my army and then sit back and watch them destroy anything that isn't mine. (Actually I like stealing things with the engineer, and my <font color=red>"wall of yuri"</font color=red> is brilliant) These are good games, because they don't try to "simulate" anything real. Yes, there are wars in real life but...

<font color=purple><b>Sports is good but its just too tiring in real life</b></font color=purple>
Sometimes I do like playing these games especially football. (Real proper football, where you control the ball with your feet; not just pick it up and run around wearing poncy lycra.) But c'mon, I never baught a football "sim" in my life. I only play it in my friends house when there are loads of us there. I prefer to play it outside on the grass thank you very much.

<font color=purple><b>Anything that isn't you, is your enemy</b></font color=purple>
I like playing quake and other fps games. In easy mode, they are a brilliant way of stress relief. (My voodoo doll is pretty good too. But I gotta wait till the next morning to see the result of that. :wink: ) The problem is, most players of these games are concerned far too much with what they don't see and wouldn't be able to see anyway. You'll hear people gloating because they're machine churns out 200frames pers second over the next guys 195. I mean, what the hell is that all about? who gives a [-peep-] about stupid framerate like that. gimme 60fps, and I'm happy. OK... so 85fps does help a bit.

The best thing about these games is that, it is lightyears away from reality. you can get shot umpteen times and still survive. And if you can manage to get a picture of your boss and skin one of the characters with that. The game is even enjoyable in spectator mode. just release the hungry bots.

<font color=purple><b>A return to innocence</b></font color=purple>
What is the perfect computer game? Is it doom, the daddy of violent fps? Is it command & conquer, making stratagists out of all of us? Is it the ones serving our modern day fantasies of being in a jet fighter or $1m car? or is it soemthing much simpler? I would say tetris has achieved perfection. If the borg played computer games, thats what they'd play. It is nothing but a bunch of falling bricks you use to make lines. Thats all! The game defines simplicity it self. Since this game, there have been many clones and "improvments" on genre that never really took off. It is a game that you can play over and over and over through out the years, and still get immersed. I've seen nice calm girls get high on adrenelin playing this game on a monochrome gameboy.

Why are all the games these days cheap knock offs of the last knock off? Why can't all these big huge gaming corporations come up with new ideas. Is it really that difficult?

<font color=red><i>99% of statistics are made up!</i></font color=red>

More about : computer game

December 20, 2001 8:47:45 PM

And why can't more games have nekkid chicks?

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
December 20, 2001 10:03:53 PM

If a game has very realistic, and amazing graphics (this means physics and the nice little things developers throw in), astaounding gameplay (should take me a few days at least to beat on easy- and the plot should be very loooong), learning curve of under 10 hours, hot, female character preferable:) , but if not, then a cool looking one, 3d sound (me likes EAX), FPS with a little RPG thrown in (like Deus Ex), or action/adventure game (like Drakan), many different enemies and weapons. There, that basically sums it up.
To me, classical games are:
Deus Ex
Drakan
Half Life (hey, it had amazing graphics in its day).

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?
Related resources
December 20, 2001 10:48:38 PM

*sigh*
This is almost my tag line; too bad I'm ripping it off of someone else:

"*Snooooooooooooooze*
Dude, that's one hell of a rant"


That said, Panzer General 2 is a good game, music and gameplay. I'm no war gamer, I'm a 'is-it-fun' gamer. Max Payne is pretty, Tomb Raider 2 has awesome music and decent gameplay, IwD roxx when it comes to storyline/music, Star Control 2 roxx when it comes to entire-game storyline/music, Bg2 has awesome gameplay, Fallout 1 has an awesome story/plot.

I'd have to say the storyline wins out on me, followed closely by music (atmosphere). Virtual Reality is what you make of it, and my ears/nose/fingers are more sensitive than my eyes. I'm not blind, but a couple more degrees refraction, and I might qualify.

Gfx are a must, only to the extent you can tell what's going on in the game. *BUT*, that's why 'action games' are action games; Unreal Tournament has a really week (not weak) storyline, but it's gameplay roxx. Virtual Reality Nekkid chicks will have a niche all of their own.

Holodecks will redefine male evolution.
December 20, 2001 11:37:33 PM

Anything which is playable, fun, and doesn't sacrifice the game for the gfx. Too many games with wonderfull intros and no gameplay.

<b><font color=blue>~scribble~</font color=blue></b> :wink: <A HREF="http://www.ud.com/home.htm" target="_new">Help cure cancer.</A>
December 21, 2001 4:53:05 AM

Return to Castle Wolfenstein is the first FPS game in I can't remember how long, that has a GREAT single play as well as an out standing online mode. I must admit that I have MANY burned copys of games, but the ones that are really good (that I continue to play) I buy. This one has lots of the extras that most others do not.
-N-

The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.
December 21, 2001 6:36:14 PM

Haven't you played sextris?

<font color=red><i>99% of statistics are made up!</i></font color=red>
December 21, 2001 6:39:19 PM

:smile:

Yep

<b>If you make a sytem that even an idiot can use, only an idiot will use it!!</b>
December 21, 2001 6:40:30 PM

Quote:
Anything which is playable, fun, and doesn't sacrifice the game for the gfx.

Too bad, none of the big publishers see it that way. They want just another from the standard formula that made them millions.


<font color=red><i>99% of statistics are made up!</i></font color=red>
December 21, 2001 7:28:00 PM

I agree with the Half-Life suggestion.

It has a good storyline without all of the stupid movies of today's games. (I hate waiting five minutes for the movie dialogue to end. It is simple yet the crowbar makes a great sqwish-thud noise when you club someone with it. The weapons are realistic for the most part. Now Counterstrike has the best weapons for realism. The correct sound for each weapon. Good physics except for shooting someone in the foot and they die. (I always thought that was stupid.) Not many games now have the same simplistic, good storyline, good guys vs the bad guys vs the other bad guys, while maintaining eye-candy graphics approach.

I know it is now, what like 3 years old, but I still play it and have fun. (Single and multiplayer.)

P.S. Another good game for single play is/was AVP.

Back to the peanut gallery...

<b>"The events of my life are quite inconsequential.." - Dr. Evil</b> :lol: 
December 22, 2001 9:14:37 AM

Yep [sigh].

I find myself using my ZX Spectrum emulator, or loading up old DOS games quite often. When I find a game I like, I stick to it. There are decent games out there, but you usually have to buy 5 to find 1.

<b><font color=blue>~scribble~</font color=blue></b> :wink: <A HREF="http://www.ud.com/home.htm" target="_new">Help cure cancer.</A>
December 22, 2001 12:50:43 PM

Xcom1 was a good game too. I think the developers/coders just grabbed every single tabloid they could get their hands on, and incorporated it into the game.

It's real close to believable. A bit like Fallout1. That's what makes a game stick with you...
December 22, 2001 7:00:54 PM

1. Gameplay
2. Story
3. Graphics

I most of the breakthrough ideas have come with technological advances. Personally I think that in video games, the sequal usually surpasses the original. When they get into 3 and 4 is when the trouble starts. Right now we are at the limits of what we can do with games. It'll take another Voodoo1 type of device to jolt the game industry again.

Lay off the American Football you stuffy Brit. Give me the lycra over the little boy shorts any day of the week.


Blah, Blah Blahh, Blahh, blahh blah blahh, blah blah.
December 23, 2001 8:13:27 PM

- Half Life: A real breakthrew, scary, fabulous sound, long and excellent storyline. Used a cheat code to finish, way to long for me.
- Q3 & UT: Toogether because same genre, as single UT has more to it
- Silent Hunter: Yes this is really old. But sub games are cool. Make a mistake of judment that is not it, reaction time is long so you work till the bitter end.
- C&C, Red Alert: Just so easy to play.When put at hard setting is more fun, plan,plan and plan what you will do.
Yep, most are better than that other thing, Oh ya, TV :-)

Danny

Electric coolaid for everyone, except me, never touch the stuff !
December 23, 2001 11:19:54 PM

Quote:
Lay off the American Football you stuffy Brit. Give me the lycra over the little boy shorts any day of the week.

Oooo touchy! :lol: 


<font color=red><i>99% of statistics are made up!</i></font color=red>
December 26, 2001 3:44:49 AM

I think you hit the nail on the head, Pettytheft. Gameplay, Story, Graphics. I would add Innovation, Multiplayer as of lesser importance.
Games that I have played that fulfill all of these components near perfectly are Half Life, Deus Ex, Baldur's Gate 1& 2, Diablo2 LoD expansion, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Starcraft, Tribes, and Worms 2 (as well as Armageddon). Games that came darn close but lacked something major were Soldier of Fortune (mainly lacking a good storyline), UT and Q3A (UT not as much as Quake by pref, but both lack a single player), Tribes 2 (lacking innovation as it was almost the same as the first), and Daikatana (really lacking good gameplay).

I know I left out a few in each category as well as the millions of games that just plain suck. But the great games are the ones you install evertime you reformat and play even though you've got a brand new game sitting in the box. The games I am looking forward too as potential winners are Deus Ex 2, Half Life 2 (still a LONG way off), Unreal 2, Soldier of Fortune 2, Warcraft 3 (w00t beta sign ups Jan 7) and Neverwinter Nights. I hope they all turn out as beautiful as the look because it seems game developers are finally learning from previous mistakes made by the industry as a whole and using that knowledge to simply make a better game.

eh, i'll procrastinate later...
December 26, 2001 2:43:28 PM

Yes I spent a year and a half in Europe defending my favorite sport. Nobody bashes American football like the Brits and Aussies.

Blah, Blah Blahh, Blahh, blahh blah blahh, blah blah.
December 26, 2001 5:44:01 PM

Its funny how all the games (well, all but one) are sequals. Thats just it, publishers just publish games that show likeness to those that have earned them a lot of money. They never look at new ideas, unless they're from developers that are already established.


<font color=red><i>99% of statistics are made up!</i></font color=red>
December 27, 2001 8:03:41 PM

Quote:
publishers just publish games that show likeness to those that have earned them a lot of money. They never look at new ideas, unless they're from developers that are already established.


If you're refering to my list of upcoming games that I am looking forward to, then you obviously know nothing about them or the companies involved in their release. Every game mentioned has a significant improvement in one area of its genre that would make it extremely exciting to both wait for and hopefully play. The reason the games are sequels is that the original storylines lended themselves to and were popular enough to support a sequel. The gameplay itself for each one is supposed to be radically changed for what everyone hopes to be the better. It goes to show you that game publishers are willing to take risks and for the most part are always pushing for new ideas in gaming.

As for your comment about how new ideas only come from established developers, well you're almost completely wrong here. Nearly every good game these days comes from a company that no one has heard about until the games release. Half Life being the biggest example, came from a no name company calling themselves Valve Software. Sure lots of established companies keep on generating great ideas, but don't leave out the great upstarts that become just as established.

eh, i'll procrastinate later...
December 28, 2001 8:31:24 AM

No no not totally naked, must keep those neurons working. :-)
Dress them in hot red lingerie.
Personnal i now have fallen for 7 of 9.

Danny

No Barbie Dolls under the tree this Xmass! :frown:
December 28, 2001 4:56:18 PM

Jerri Ryan is ugly, I don't know what people see in her. Well, maybe ugly is too harsh. She's nothing special, though.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
December 28, 2001 8:29:41 PM

Don't know what to answer ?
Just cannot beleive someone not totally in awe about Jerri Ryan. Maybe it's just me. :redface:
Ok! You give me a name, Mister fussy ! No i did not say wussy ! hi hi

Danny

Nostradamus: "In the year 2002 naked alien women will descend to earth"
December 28, 2001 8:42:00 PM

Give you a name?

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
December 28, 2001 9:05:29 PM

Well like: Britney Spears, Madonna, Julia Roberts, Ben Laden Opps he was just desquised as a women hi hi

Danny

Nostradamus: "In the year 2002 naked alien women will descend to earth"
December 28, 2001 9:43:48 PM

Jessica Alba, for one.

Britney? Much worse than Jerri Ryan.
Madonna? She's with Gwen Stefani. Almost...but no.
Julia Roberts? She's just overdone. Nothing against her.
Bin Laden? Hehehe

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
December 28, 2001 10:02:01 PM

Jessica Alba. ??? Sorry, please educate me as to this girls identity !
My mind was blank for names, but all their faces are down pat. :-)
What's that blond in the last "planet of the apes" flic ?
Dynamite !
Could talk women for hours myself :-)

Danny

Nostradamus: "In the year 2002 naked alien women will descend to earth"
December 28, 2001 10:54:43 PM

bump, ouch

Danny

Nostradamus: "In the year 2002 naked alien women will descend to earth"
December 29, 2001 11:10:36 AM

Raquel Welch


<b><font color=blue>~scribble~</font color=blue></b> :wink: <A HREF="http://www.ud.com/home.htm" target="_new">Help cure cancer.</A>
December 29, 2001 2:02:52 PM

If i am not wistaken she is one of those women that even approaching 50 still has that female sexappeal. She is approching 50, am i right?
Pamela Anderson: Look when you have shapes like that, you should be registered as a "danger to the male population".

Danny

Nostradamus: "In the year 2002 naked alien women will descend to earth"
December 29, 2001 8:24:09 PM

Quote:
Every game mentioned has a significant improvement in one area of its genre

This statement just lends to my statement. "improvemnts" not a totally new idea or game. It does not show that publishers are willing to take risks. These games might have better gameplay and new features, but you cannot deny they are based an establish formula.

Half life is again a game based on an established formula that sells like hotcakes. It is not a new idea or an idea remotely different from the rest to be considered radical. So, again, no risk on part of the publisher.


<font color=red><i>99% of statistics are made up!</i></font color=red>
December 29, 2001 8:26:03 PM

Isn't the girl in the last planet of the apes film called Estella Warren or something?

<font color=red><i>99% of statistics are made up!</i></font color=red>
December 29, 2001 9:39:07 PM

So would you then say that every FPS after Doom was unoriginal? Half Life was extremely radical for its day. It was the one of the earliest FPS with a solid storyline. Up until then it was mostly deathmatch single player. Half Life also brought the idea of seamless cutscenes rendered just as the game is.

As for improvements on games that go into sequels, I would have to ask you why a great game that gets further improvements implemented is no longer a great game, much less an even better one. The way you seem to think, no game is truly great unless nothing like it has come before. With that kind of mentality, you would not only see a lot of crappy ideas come into being, but you would also run out of them very quickly. It seems the better plan is to take a risk here and there, but once you find a good formula, stick to it and improve upon it.

eh, i'll procrastinate later...
December 30, 2001 11:04:44 AM

You know your name shows the complete opposite of your viewpoint. TheAntipop that totally supports the pop culture.

Anyway, I never said those games aren't good or great, neither are they totally unoriginal but the idea was already there, so they're not exactly new either. They're not a total replica mind you, but based on something that existed before. Yes Halflife had something of a B-Movie storyline but it was afterall a FPS shoot'em up. As far as the story goes, wasn't it something like some aliens from a different dimension get transported to earth. Wasn't that the storyline of Duke nukem? What about Doom and Doom 2? I never said no game is truly great unless nothing like it has been before. But I am saying it is not an original game.

Just to help you out here I'll tell you which games I have played in the typical "copy the last" types. I played Wolfenstein 3D, I haven't played Spear of Destiny. Wolf3D was good cos I never played anything like it before. It never got to the wide public though. Doom was published well, got a lot of good and bad publicity. But the way I see it if it helps to sell, then there is no such thing as bad publicity. Doom also was a good game as this genre was still scarce. Doom 2 appealed to me first because I was left hungry for more after the first one, but after a while I got bored, just gave up and stopped playing it. By this time a lot of other people started to copy this Idea. I played a bit of the Aliens game before saying no. Kinda the same with Duke Nukem 3D. Heretic and Hexen kind of had a new idea of intertwining different levels. But still that wasn't enough to keep me interested.

Quake was another game that appealed to me. It looked new and different. The gameplay was different because it wasn't a game where the monsters jumped at you from all directions simultaneously but it still had something. It was also pretty good in multiplayer which was kinda new as multiplayer in the games before this was just crap. Quake2 again was good and everything. There was a big improement in graphics. But gameplay tasted like quake. I don't think the multiplayer was as good as quake. Then every other developer jumped the bandwagon making games hardly any better and thats where I said enough is enough. I played some of halflife and some of Sin, but neither got me saying I need to finish this game. I only bothered playing the first level of unreal.

Quake 3 was refreshing. Do you remember how much flak John Carmack had to take when that game was being released. All the critics were saying this game is rubbish and will not sell. Whats the point of having just half a game i.e. the multiplayer part without the story mode single player. But it sold like hotcakes. This was a game that was radically different to the rest. UT also sold well but wasn't exactly radically different since it does what quake 3 already did, but in a better way in the opinion of some.

Same with The RTS genre, a successful formula starting with Dune 2 and more importantly C&C. Tiberian sun was just like Dune 2, what with the good, the bad, the forgotten and sand/tiberium monsters. Homeworld was something that was radical in that arena.

Now let me tell you of a game that is new, different and original. Black and White. Now tell me how successful this game would have been if it did not come from someone like Peter Molyneux. Would it have made its author in excess of £10m? Would it have even been accepted by the publisher? Do you remember the guy who made worms and how much grief he went through before that game would get published?


<font color=red><i>99% of statistics are made up!</i></font color=red>
December 30, 2001 5:01:05 PM

Ah [-peep-] it, I just typed a long response but it somehow got deleted when I tried to send it. I don't really care anymore.

The only thing I want to ask you about is how I "totally support pop culture". I laughed my ass off when I read that, seeing as how it came out of no where in a desperate attempt to personally attack me in some way. Nice try, but it comes off too much as comedy to hurt.

eh, i'll procrastinate later...
December 30, 2001 8:04:35 PM

It wasn't meant to hurt, and it wasn't out of nowhere, but it was to show that the FPS genre that exists IS the pop culture of today. You seemed to support that. That is all!

<font color=red><i>99% of statistics are made up!</i></font color=red>
January 2, 2002 8:28:44 PM

See? Now you know why so many men (Grizely1 for instance) are completely obsessed with her.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
!