Infinite business wisdom

[Bezurn]

How about a first person turn based OR real time strategy game? I understand that there would be little market for an isometric turn based strategy game. They want to get a new generation of gamers introduced to the franchise. However it is very risky to throw away the bath out with the bath water and hope the stork will drop in a better baby and tub to take their place.

If they attempted to capture some of the essence of the old play style while enhancing the graphic and user interface aspect of the game I would think that would appeal both to gamers who've played the originals and to a new generation. The only game I can think of that does something like this is Fallout 3 (not played it though). This game is quite successful and the original was released around the same time that the original fallout series existed.

I understand their motivation with wanting to go FPS or TPS as it allows for a richer environment and is one of the most popular way to present a video game. I just think they should allow the gamer to decide an option for real time or turn based. Sure it'd take more work, but the result I think would be very good for both crowds.

 

[baldfalk]

"There is a barbarian uprising to the south. Go kill 20 brutes and return to me."

... ... ...

"It appears some barbarians have escaped. Destroy 10 of their triremes and report back."

... ... ...

...Ad nauseam...

I'm betting Bears will become a tile resource just to support quests for collecting 15 bear asses.

 

[Phyrio]

I don't see a concerning problem. If 2k is foolish enough to give up their influential platform in strategy games and abandon all of the accumulated game-developing knowledge they have acquired over the years in order to follow the scent of grass-is-greener-more-money-in-fps, then fine. This thread, along with the success of the Civ genre, is proof that there will be a market for strategy games, at least in the foreseeable future. Thus, other companies will gladly step in.

 

[Aristos]

This community is one of the best features of every Civ release that the publisher doesn't control.

are you sure about this? Sometimes I feel that even this has been lost with the last release...

 

[NukeEm]

From personal experience... I recently started playing EU3: Divine Wind online with a friend... I find it near impossible to play Civ now... it feels so limited. Even Civ 4 wouldn't come close...

Most of my recent gaming purchases have been from Indie studios. They design better games for less money. I've purchased Minecraft, Terraria and EU3 and those 3 games have given me countless hours of fun. Even Revenge of the Titans is sucking up my time too... Indie is where it's at.

"Big Gaming" no longer makes what I love. I personally hated SC2 and Blizzards focus on E-Sports. (I'm personally not even remotely interested in E-Sports.)I know that's where the money is, but not my money that's for sure. I thought Civ was an amazing strategy franchise and then I was introduced to EU3 and today I have trouble justifying even having it installed...

Personally I don't care if large companies focus on money... those who truly love gaming for the artform that it is will make great games and I will buy THOSE games... for less money than a AAA title and I will most likely end up playing it for far longer because the people who made the game said "What would make this more fun?" instead of "What will make us more money?"

 

[ghoultek]

are you sure about this? Sometimes I feel that even this has been lost with the last release...

I'm pretty sure. The official forums can easy be censored by 2K Games. The independent forums (Civ Fanatics) cannot. Most people I've come across in this forum seem mature, and there are lot of people who contribute their knowledge of the game openly... each patch/version release.

Edit:
I hear ya NukeEm... I still play Diablo2. I'm excited about Diablo3, but I suspect Blizzard will disappoint me to a degree like they did with SC-2. SC-2 is fun and was successful, but part of their vision for the game and its future doesn't mesh well with me. My dislike for part of the game and Blizz's vision is what motivated me to take a look at turn based strategy games and I headed straight for Civ. I'm also checking out games made by some EX-Blizzard developers... google "runic games". A small shop putting together something that looks promising. Maybe these guys will take a stab at turn based strategy.

 

[baldfalk]

google "runic games". A small shop putting together something that looks promising. Maybe these guys will take a stab at turn based strategy.

Torchlight? That's kind of a weird choice, considering half the popular upset over D3 was its cartoonish graphics in comparison to the first two games, and Torchlight emphasizes that look.

Not saying it's a bad game (It's an excellent game and I'm excited for what Runic is doing with the franchise in future) but it's just kind of weird that you'd discount D3 as it is now while the game isn't even out yet.

 

[Thormodr]

Good take on what the whole affair can be found here:

http://nohighscores.com/sites/all/files/images/bill/kanye.jpg

 

[ghoultek]

Torchlight? That's kind of a weird choice, considering half the popular upset over D3 was its cartoonish graphics in comparison to the first two games, and Torchlight emphasizes that look.

Not saying it's a bad game (It's an excellent game and I'm excited for what Runic is doing with the franchise in future) but it's just kind of weird that you'd discount D3 as it is now while the game isn't even out yet.

I'm not very happy with the attitude and direction that Blizzard/Activision is taking with all of their games. Blizz/Activision are focused on maximizing the revenue/profit from their products. Making great games is not their priority. Here is a short version of my unhappy list:

Spoiler :

- no LAN feature in SC-2 or Diablo3 (this is a biggie)
- Battlenet 2.0 (gotta be like Steam... follow the leader)
- Facebook integration (no thank you... don't want it and don't need it)
- SC-2's and Civ 5's code is bloated and slow, Diablo 3's code will be as well
- slow/bloated code means greater hardware demands (less facebook and more code efficiency please)
- Achievement system in all of their new games (more follow the leader... see foamy the squirrel #189 "Achievement")
- negative changes to the e-sports community by requiring fees from tourney organizers
- retail cost ($60 for the game and another $60 for the expansion... inflation my @55!)

I have no problems with the rendered look of Diablo 3 and I like the rendered look of TL. TL runs on net books (hello code efficiency). TL is an inexpensive game and Runic is preaching their commitment to making TL-2 an inexpensive game. I like Civ 5's inexpensive DLC content as well.

I like hosting LAN/Console parties for my son, our relatives, his friends, his baseball team and his classmates. So the family and community aspect (without facebook) of gaming isn't there for me/us. Because I host LAN/Console parties I can engage the other parents on a variety of topics and projects (see the list in my prior post), and I have the attention and respect of the younger gamers.

Diablo 3 is still a work in progress, but the info. and short movies released are part of Blizzard's PR, marketing and advertisement strategy. PR, marketing, and advertising are tied to the product and part of their success strategy. So, I'm justified in criticizing the work in progress. I own and play a copy of SC-2, but I'm not waiting for Diablo 3 to be released before I look for alternative sources of entertainment.

 

[Fabiano79]

Another fine example of the wisdon of the game developers:

Develop 2010: "Gamers are losing patience" with 10-hour-plus games, say developers, while casual games have lowered gamers' expectations.

What are they smoking?

 

[Becephalus]

Another fine example of the wisdon of the game developers:

Develop 2010: "Gamers are losing patience" with 10-hour-plus games, say developers, while casual games have lowered gamers' expectations.

What are they smoking?

This happens with anything that is being popularized.

You have a core group of customers A. As the demand for the product grows you start catering to customers B-G.

A (people like us) want better products, more craftmanship, we are invested and are willing to pay more (in time and money) to get more.

Meanwhile B-G aren't really as interested in the product, and they want something light and short.

Companies calculate that getting $1 from A-G and pissing off A is better then getting $3 from A and no other dollars.

The only way to fight this is to pay to support games you like. Buy good games from independent developers, don't pirate games, don't tolerate friends who pirate games. Don't whine about things like Steam which are making things easier for smaller developers. Steam is your friend not your enemy.

There are enough serious gamers out there to support a robust serious gaming industry. If the big studios would rather chase casual players there will be smaller companies to take their place, we just need to support them.

 

[The_J]

Another fine example of the wisdon of the game developers:

Develop 2010: "Gamers are losing patience" with 10-hour-plus games, say developers, while casual games have lowered gamers' expectations.

What are they smoking?

Whatever it is, we have to know the name to prevent anyone from smoking it too.
That's damn scary and so massively wrong...i can't find more words.

 

[MadDjinn]

Another fine example of the wisdon of the game developers:

Develop 2010: "Gamers are losing patience" with 10-hour-plus games, say developers, while casual games have lowered gamers' expectations.

What are they smoking?

Don't get too mad.

They were talking about 'casual and social' gamers and games. These aren't meant to be that involved. The problem was that they looked at games which 'social and casual' gamers likely wouldn't have bought anyways. Which means they aren't that bright of a group.

It's ok for developers to chase the social and casual gamer subset. It's new and a growing market. The problem is when they think that they can still sell the 'usual' games to them.

Sadly, this also shows a trend that they also believe the new generation of gamers are too stupid to handle anything more complex than a simple 'puzzle' that has instructions on how to complete it. (unfortunately in a lot of cases this is true)

 

[randallman]

If this is the vission of the top "heads" at 2K, God help the franchise, because no one else will be able to...

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/221046/2k-boss-strategy-games-are-just-not-contemporary/

Now I understand. Do you?

Let me preface this with the fact that I do like CiV. It has nowhere near the depth that CIV had, but I am still enjoying it.

But... This is happenning all over...

Crysis 1 was an awesome PC FPS, Crysis 2 - a console port... Terrible

Dragon Age 1 was an awesome spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate/NWN/Old gold box DnD games, Dragon Age 2 was basically an Action RPG

It's true - the masses simply do not like 'turn based strategy' or 'turn based role playing'. They want to pop in for 30 minutes to an hour and 'frag stuff' and pop out. If you think about it, the masses always preferred nintento to C64, they always perferred Playstation to the Pentium, and so on and so forth.

What really killed us was the Xbox 360 - the HD graphics, etc... it made the 360 a ubiquitous platform on which all game designers could write reasonable modern games and 'the masses' would gobble it up.

So, I think the days are numbered where we get good AAA titles with any real depth... And along with that goes any reason for us strategy fans to buy a killer 'game PC'. The world is changing!

And can we really blame the developers? Who doesnt like to target the biggest market? While we remain a niche market, why cater to a niche market when the larger general markets are so much more promising... Perhaps the niche players will realize their mistake within a few years when folks stop buying games that are targeted at the average gamer.

 

[randallman]

Just sad.

People doesnt seem to realize that older gamers have a lot more money to spent them the average GTA player. What we lack on numbers we compensate by having larger pockets. We are an audience to be pleased as well.

Would you have spent $100.00 on the CiV that should have been rather than the ~50$ (was it 59.99?) on the CiV that was?

If you would, how many others would? That's what it would cost to make a AAA title that only appealed to 500k buyers (numbers out of my arse, but just to make a point...)

--Randall

 

[ohioastronomy]

I did spend 50 bucks on games like Civ 4 and Dragon Age 1, because they were good. After the diluted garbage of Civ 5 and Dragon Age 2 those publishers have lost me - and by all accounts they've sold fewer copies than the earlier, non-mass appeal games.

Call me staid, but selling more copies of a better game strikes me as a better idea than selling fewer copies of a worse one. They were able to make a huge profit at 50 dollars before - where is it written that they're entitled to 10 times the sales if they make something bland?

 

[randallman]

I did spend 50 bucks on games like Civ 4 and Dragon Age 1, because they were good. After the diluted garbage of Civ 5 and Dragon Age 2 those publishers have lost me - and by all accounts they've sold fewer copies than the earlier, non-mass appeal games.

Call me staid, but selling more copies of a better game strikes me as a better idea than selling fewer copies of a worse one. They were able to make a huge profit at 50 dollars before - where is it written that they're entitled to 10 times the sales if they make something bland?

Well, let's hope that this was all a grand failed experiment in making niche games into games with mass appeal... Let's hope that the designers don't just proclaim the genres dead since there's more to be had in appealing to the masses with bland FPSs and facebook/flash games

But then again, I suppose that's what the original article was about - how the genre isn't 'contemporary'... To me, this means business leadership at game design shops are thinking that the genre is, in fact, not worth investing into further.

Perhaps the indie game developer scene will save us... but minecraft?

 

[Thormodr]

Would you have spent $100.00 on the CiV that should have been rather than the ~50$ (was it 59.99?) on the CiV that was?

If you would, how many others would? That's what it would cost to make a AAA title that only appealed to 500k buyers (numbers out of my arse, but just to make a point...)

--Randall

I have said before on these forums that I would be prepared to spend $200 on the Ultimate Civ game. I am sure a lot of long time Civ fans would too.

 

[Thormodr]

Well, let's hope that this was all a grand failed experiment in making niche games into games with mass appeal... Let's hope that the designers don't just proclaim the genres dead since there's more to be had in appealing to the masses with bland FPSs and facebook/flash games

But then again, I suppose that's what the original article was about - how the genre isn't 'contemporary'... To me, this means business leadership at game design shops are thinking that the genre is, in fact, not worth investing into further.

Perhaps the indie game developer scene will save us... but minecraft?

Indie looks like it's the wave of the future.

Whether one likes Civilization 5 or not, Civ VI is in serious jeopardy now, considering the words of 2K Games' CEO.

Sure hope there are some Indie developers that are looking at Civ right now and sensing an opportunity.

 

[Zenstrive]

In all honesty,
if you want to look at future of PC gaming,
look at Europe and indie.

Witcher 2, Torchlight, Minecraft, Terraria, Jamestown, Who's That Flying ???!, Magicka, Elemental.

Civ V is a fine game, I even play it more and more since the last patch (after not playing it for more than four months due to boredom). Dragon Age 2 is more accessible, got more fun moments, and altogether feels not like a chore that is Dragon Age: Origins.

Mind you, in majority, there are two kind of PC Gamers right now: Grown up PC gamers that need to work and therefore have less time playing games if they want to balance their work, family, and gaming time and new generation of PC gamers that were brought into the scene already messed up first person shooters, mediocre games, and buggy releases.

The grown up PC gamers need to balance things, hence the need to have a quick fix. I was playing colonizations non stop for 4 years because I can have my TBS fix start up after five minutes and end it ten minutes later after finishing ten turns or more and finish the whole shebang it in two hours. I used to play Command and Conquer:Generals:Zero Hours for the same reasons: Fire it up in five minutes, finish it in ten, close it, and go to work, go to sleep, or satisfy the mistress.

The new gamers have choices: PC games where you can find loads and loads of RPGs, RTS, or TBSs, or console games where the cool games are all at. Many non-heavy gamers choose console, and so the new gamers went to console in flocks.

When they grown up a little, they got bored by their consoles and seek fulfillment in PC. Their mentalities are still that of console gamers: short fix, big boom, and have a bit of shooters mentality, or if not, on the rail RPGs. So they choose to play something that can supply that. They choose shooters because on the rail RPGs are rare in PC.

Strategy games are far from their minds.

So when they see a game, famously called Civilizations, they got curious and try it.

If the game is as complicated as fully expanded Civ IV, will they play it till the end and not moving back into shooters? Doubtful there.

And so thus born Civ V: Civilization with heavy emphasis on battle mentality at first.

Only later when the game sold in millions and peace-loving players found it to brutal and started to shout out loud to firaxis did they balance things out.

Now the game feels more completely strategic.

How many early adopters that love the battle emphasis of the game are now flabbergasted by the change brought upon the latest patch? Severe penalties on happiness and things are more spread out, making them thinking about it more.

If the statistics are showing that less and less people are playing the game after it made more strategic and less kablooey, don't blame Firaxis if Civ 6 will be more fast paced and streamlined.