| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Side Quest: Random Ramblings |
|
I had some deeper topics planned for this Side Quest but a lack of time meant I didn’t have time to explore and develop the issues. In the meantime, here’s some observations on two games I find an interesting juxtaposition. A lot of partial substantiation and plain ol’ supposition follows, so please feel free to comment.
<br>
<br>The last week or so has seen the Gold announcement for Oblivion and the release of a strategy game called <a href="http://www.galciv2.com/Index.aspx" target="_blank">Galactic Civilisations II</a>. There’s no link between these two whatsoever, so why single them out? Because they represent almost polar opposites in terms of the development and product but both seem likely to be quite successful in their respective markets. They also represent some game elements that we are often told present a barrier to sales.
<br>
<br>Oblivion is clearly a massive product, both in terms of scope and development. We don’t know what Oblivion cost to make but the size of the team makes it pretty clear it is an expensive development. It’s also the first “next-gen” RPG – whatever that means. Barring an unforeseen disaster, it’s destined for sales stardom – the series is successful, the press has primed it to a fever-pitch and Xbox 360 owners looking for an RPG (and some would say just a decent game to play  ) will likely pick it up in large numbers.
<br>
<br>Stardock’s GalCiv2 probably won’t sell anything like the numbers of Oblivion but it was the <a href="http://forums.galciv2.com/index.aspx?forumid=161&aid=104297&c=1" target="_blank">best-selling game last week at Walmart </a> (not just best-selling PC strategy game – best selling title across all platforms) and the development costs were modest. Of course, the current level of competition is part of this picture but it’s pretty amazing to see an indie, turn-based, 4x space strategy title take off so well – and they also own a digital download portal, making them a veritable poster-pinup for the theoretical indie developer of the future. To be fair, Stardock is able to fund their game development from their Windows desktop utility software so they are a little different to the average struggling indie game developer.
<br>
<br>So, here are some observations – and you might see a common thread.
<br>
<br><b>Freeform gameplay is attractive.</b> It’s counter to the thinking that anything too complex sends gamers screaming in fear to the safety of buying Barbie Playhouse but the few well-made open-ended games that are made readily find both audiences and critical acclaim. Clearly many gamers want simple, directed gameplay – but many don’t.
<br>
<br><b>Stats aren’t bad.</b> Oblivion detractors will (rightly) point out the erosion of skills and options since Daggerfall but there is no escaping that Oblivion remains a complex game with a large number of character creation choices, as was Morrowind before it. GalCiv2 pulls no punches in creating a deep and complex strategy game. The next time a game producer insists their cRPG needs to be simplified to find an audience, call them on it. It just isn’t true.
<br>
<br><b>Turn-based isn’t dead.</b> This is a complex one. The last time really I discussed turn-based games with a developer was soon after the release of Civilisations 3 – and they pointed out that the Civilisation franchise is big enough to carry its own. That’s hard to argue with but if turn-based was the instant kiss of death, would the franchise name alone save it? At this point, GalCiv2 shows it isn’t that simple. While GalCiv is obviously <i>building</i> a franchise, the last entry sold a mere 100,000 copies so the early sales trends would suggest a whole new audience is interested in this second entry – and it’s mostly built on word of mouth because there is no big marketing campaign.
<br>
<br>That doesn’t prove that the strategy market isn’t simply different to cRPGS, of course. But it does indicate to me that audiences are open to turn-based games – if they are well made.
<br>
<br><b>Building communities works.</b> A part of GalCiv’s success is the community they have built. CEO Brad Wardell is well known on several boards and writes a surprisingly frank <a href="http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?c=1" target="_blank">blog</a>. Their TotalGaming.net portal sells games that are completely devoid of copy-protection – not even a CD-check. Obviously, most developers aren’t in a position to do this but it shows that community goodwill can produce concrete sales. |
Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:14 am |
|
|
Acleacius
King of the Realms
Joined: 24 Dec 2002
Posts: 453
|
Great piece, any success in the RPG or indie front is certainly welcome. 
It is a rather strange concept to me, but often times the dire warnings of the eminent end of things, is quite fraudulent.
I.e. Coop, RPGs and Turn Based. seem based on propaganda or willful ignorance of Pubs more so than Devs, since Devs seem willing to develop if the funding is available.
On the surface I believe casual gamers or more often than not the victims, yet as they become more and more involved in the choices, i.e. voting with their wallet, they are finding many games lacking as do more experienced gamers.
This propaganda from Pubs seems to tie-in to MS’s attempt to divert Dev talent to their desires to complete with Sony, in the short term.
Thankfully it seems to be the console gamers whom are starting to join the PC gamers in the cry of foul at the poorly developed, rushed and buggy games that have plagued PC and console gamers alike for the last 4 years. |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:39 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
| Re: Side Quest: Random Ramblings |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
Turn-based isn’t dead. This is a complex one. The last time really I discussed turn-based games with a developer was soon after the release of Civilisations 3 – and they pointed out that the Civilisation franchise is big enough to carry its own...
I think turn-based is poised to make some new true believers. I for one have always avoided turn-based like the plague, but a few newer entries such as Hammer & Sickle and the upcoming Heroes of Might and Magic game definitely have made me think twice. Besides, alot of real-time games I've played are played almost in a turn-based manner anyway, and yet others (such as the new Star Wars rts) would clearly benefit from having certain parts of the game (such as the space battles) turn-based.
I'm not saying that I'm some kind of barometer of the trends in gameland, but I'm saying that part of the reason people like me have avoided turn-based for a long time have been crappy graphics and quite frankly, boring looking games. The newer turn-based games look good, and they look fun and interesting.
Im just bummed that it appears there is no demo for Galactic Civ II
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:49 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
As someone who prefers TB games, I think the problem has been the poorly done nature of them as Sammy says. No-one complained about the TB nature of Fallout; it suited the game. However the disaster known as PoR2 was enough to turn even the greatest of TB lovers off the genre forever!! I too wish there was a Demo of GalCiv2. I don't usually enjoy Strat games, but this one I'd be willing to consider!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:48 am |
|
|
r3dshift
Head Merchant
.jpg)
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 68
Location: Hungary |
Unfortunately to those of you looking forward to GalCiv 2, I must say that I've read the game's ruined by the fact that the AI *CHEATS*! Now that's something that really pisses me off with any game, so although I was really anticipating this title, I won't try it unless these cheats are somehow fixed in an upcoming patch.
_________________
Don't work too much; it could interfere with your drinking. |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:57 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Seems I've created a GaCiv2 discussion thread.
There will be a demo - Stardock said they would work on one after the release.
@r3dshift, I've actually read the exact opposite. All the threads I've seen on various boards are also pretty positive, with only some UI quirks to criticise.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:22 pm |
|
|
Roi Danton
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 34
Location: Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by r3dshift
Unfortunately to those of you looking forward to GalCiv 2, I must say that I've read the game's ruined by the fact that the AI *CHEATS*! Now that's something that really pisses me off with any game, so although I was really anticipating this title, I won't try it unless these cheats are somehow fixed in an upcoming patch.
Would you be so kind to post the source of your information?
I'm looking forward to that game, but I've never heard anything similar about it.
_________________
www.withingames.net |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:28 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
FO’s TB wasn’t that great, and shouldn’t it work the other way too? Why didn’t all the IE games, DS, etc, turn people off from RT games? Why is U7 so popular when the combat was horrible? Why is Gothic so popular despite the worst combat in any “rpg” I’ve evr played in my life?
People like what they like. People value different things. Those things can change. Like Sam, maybe he is having a paradigm shift were he is starting to value gameplay over graphics more. Maybe he is starting to find strategy more appealing and less boring. Myabe one day I’ll give one of the Gothics another try and twitch combat will click in my head and I’ll get it and maybe enjoy it.
Maybe all the kids being doped up on ritalin is giving them the attention span they need to enjoy a thinking game, making TB more appealing. Maybe the superficial appeal of graphics is loosing it’s stranglehold over the gaming community.
I won’t buy CivGal 2 for one reason: the dd is the same cost as the boxed version. I want dd’s to be the cost of the boxed version minus all production costs of the boxed version, to include all negotiations, logistics, inventory costs, etc. The whole nine. I do not want to pay a higher cost for piracy. And since this company doesn’t seem to care about making me pay only for the costs of development and bandwidth needed to give me a dd and the game, screw em. It makes me wish I new how to pirate.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:49 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
I won’t buy CivGal 2 for one reason: the dd is the same cost as the boxed version. I want dd’s to be the cost of the boxed version minus all production costs of the boxed version, to include all negotiations, logistics, inventory costs, etc.
I expect there's 2 reasons for this. 1) The retailers (and the various other businesses involved in that supply stream) probably required it so that they weren't at a competitive disadvantage. If the price wasn't the same, they'd refuse to carry the title. 2) I expect one of the ways digdist was sold to the suits was that it allowed them to pocket all those margins rolled into the traditional sales stream. "Sure, it's new and revolutionary and *shudder* different, but you get to put all those markups in your pocket!"
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:09 pm |
|
|
JDR13
Magister of the Light
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 376
Location: Michigan, United States |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
FO’s TB wasn’t that great, and shouldn’t it work the other way too? Why didn’t all the IE games, DS, etc, turn people off from RT games? Why is U7 so popular when the combat was horrible? Why is Gothic so popular despite the worst combat in any “rpg” I’ve evr played in my life?
People like what they like. People value different things. Those things can change. Like Sam, maybe he is having a paradigm shift were he is starting to value gameplay over graphics more. Maybe he is starting to find strategy more appealing and less boring. Myabe one day I’ll give one of the Gothics another try and twitch combat will click in my head and I’ll get it and maybe enjoy it.
Maybe all the kids being doped up on ritalin is giving them the attention span they need to enjoy a thinking game, making TB more appealing. Maybe the superficial appeal of graphics is loosing it’s stranglehold over the gaming community.
I won’t buy CivGal 2 for one reason: the dd is the same cost as the boxed version. I want dd’s to be the cost of the boxed version minus all production costs of the boxed version, to include all negotiations, logistics, inventory costs, etc. The whole nine. I do not want to pay a higher cost for piracy. And since this company doesn’t seem to care about making me pay only for the costs of development and bandwidth needed to give me a dd and the game, screw em. It makes me wish I new how to pirate.
Mmm... Gothic has the worst RPG combat you've ever played in your life? You haven't played very many RPG's then. |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:13 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by dteowner
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
I won’t buy CivGal 2 for one reason: the dd is the same cost as the boxed version. I want dd’s to be the cost of the boxed version minus all production costs of the boxed version, to include all negotiations, logistics, inventory costs, etc.
I expect there's 2 reasons for this. 1) The retailers (and the various other businesses involved in that supply stream) probably required it so that they weren't at a competitive disadvantage. If the price wasn't the same, they'd refuse to carry the title. 2) I expect one of the ways digdist was sold to the suits was that it allowed them to pocket all those margins rolled into the traditional sales stream. "Sure, it's new and revolutionary and *shudder* different, but you get to put all those markups in your pocket!"
That makes sense.
quote:
Mmm... Gothic has the worst RPG combat you've ever played in your life? You haven't played very many RPG's then.
How can a game I can only play in Marvin (God) mode not have the worst combat? Does it have the worst RPG combat I ever played in my life? No, its not an rpg so can't have rpg combat, so can't be the worst rpg combat.
To me, twitch action combat is far worse than any implimentation of TB combat.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:42 pm |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
Well Dr Roqua, I hate to burst your analytical bubble, but I aint giving TB a second look for wont of a more strategic or deeper gameplay experience. In my opinion, it takes for more strategy to at one time, in real time, fend off attacks on your base, on your workers, and on your army, manage your economy and technology, look for new resources, at the same time attempting to destroy an opponent whose forces and tactics can change pretty quickly. In my opinion it takes far more strategic thinking on your feet to wage war in real time than it does turn-based. Games such as Rise of Nations and Medievel Total War have pretty bad graphics, but they are a blast to play because it's a well-made game and strategical warfare experience.
Im just saying that I'm willing to throw it down into first gear and play a slower turn-based game, because lately they arent looking like crap, they actually look to have some fun and original concepts, and they look to be incorporating RT into them here and there so you dont have to crawl thru the entire game. Quite to the contrary of your analysis, they are luring me in with nice looking games that look like they can hold the interest of people other than grizzled wargamers who see hexes when they close their eyes, and die-hard stat freaks who arent happy unless there are so many stats on top of stats that they actually need 15 minute turns just to discern whether the fly was actually swatted or not.
That said, if you can get your kicks out of moving a little blue square around a map in a certain pattern until you get a brand new shiny green square for your troubles 45 mins later, then more power to ya.
I need something more to keep my interest.
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:32 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
quote:
Originally posted by xSamhainx
Well Dr Roqua, I hate to burst your analytical bubble, but I aint giving TB a second look for wont of a more strategic or deeper gameplay experience. In my opinion, it takes for more strategy to at one time fend off attacks on your base, on your workers, and on your army, manage your economy and technology, look for new resources, at the same time attempting to destroy an opponent whose forces and tactics can change pretty quickly. In my opinion it takes far more strategic thinking on your feet to wage war in real time than it does turn-based. Games such as Rise of Nations and Medievel Total War have pretty bad graphics, but they are a blast to play because it's a well-made game and strategical warfare experience.
You've got this backwards to why fans of TB games talk about deeper strategy. It's not so much about how good you are as the depth of options the game can offer. It just isn't feasible to have aimed shots, single shot, burst shot, spray, crouched, prone, running, standing, cover, stances, etc - all balanced by an Action Point cost in a realtime game. So, the developer limits the options to one or two attacks and even automates the units, so that if you don't get around to directing them the unit often just proceeds with a default attack.
Ultimately, because of the depth of options in a good TB game and the fact that the choice made with every unit and turn is meaningful (rather than in a RT system where you can usually click once and sit back while they are automated), there is more strategic onus on the player as well.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:53 pm |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
Well, I think we have a bit of generalization going on here on both sides of the fence. There's stances, formations, and different unit powers and abilities in many an RTS these days and every second in some battle can play out like a turn, it just isnt metered out. Like I said earlier, some games are almost played in a turn-based fashion, just to make it all manageable. To crank out a bunch of units and click on an enemy is a pretty easy way to lose your army, and the game.
I bet Ive just started stirring up this hornet nest, saying TB is easier than RTS. I got it easy from you, Im just dreading Dr Roqua's upcoming tounge-lashing 
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:38 am |
|
|
Ostsol
Village Dweller
Joined: 28 Jul 2002
Posts: 6
|
quote:
Originally posted by r3dshift
Unfortunately to those of you looking forward to GalCiv 2, I must say that I've read the game's ruined by the fact that the AI *CHEATS*! Now that's something that really pisses me off with any game, so although I was really anticipating this title, I won't try it unless these cheats are somehow fixed in an upcoming patch.
The AI does not cheat unless you want it to. In fact, at any skill level other than "Tough", either you or the AI is given an economic advantage. Right now I play at "Challenging", where the AI economy only runs at 75%. At lower skill levels the AI is throttled even more and isn't quite as smart. Levels higher than "Tough" is where the AI starts "cheating", but even then the only cheat is a boosted economy. See the wiki for specific details:
http://galciv.wikicities.com/wiki/Difficulty_level |
|
Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:52 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
