"When are new things good for games?" asks David Braben
- Thread starter Callum Rowley
- Start date
- Status
Anything which enhances the user experience is good.
Anything which purports to enhance the user experience that in reality is a grab for more cash is bad.
Anything which is a transparent attempt to appease the often vocal group of whiners is bad. Not listening to reasonable opinions is bad.
Dumbing down the existing game is bad. Conversely over-complexity is also bad.
Losing your connection to your user base is bad: changing things simply because you can is not good.
Trying to include as many users as possible is good, offering different modes of play is good, incremental expansion is good.
Reducing the amount of grind is good.
Making the punishment for failure too excessive is bad, rewards should justify the effort put into being successful.
Just a few thoughts.
Anything which purports to enhance the user experience that in reality is a grab for more cash is bad.
Anything which is a transparent attempt to appease the often vocal group of whiners is bad. Not listening to reasonable opinions is bad.
Dumbing down the existing game is bad. Conversely over-complexity is also bad.
Losing your connection to your user base is bad: changing things simply because you can is not good.
Trying to include as many users as possible is good, offering different modes of play is good, incremental expansion is good.
Reducing the amount of grind is good.
Making the punishment for failure too excessive is bad, rewards should justify the effort put into being successful.
Just a few thoughts.
It's better to ask the players of a specific game what they want, instead of designing something with the expectation that it'll be received well based on what is perceived by a developer. From a personal opinion, I'd stay with what works and only build or adapt upon what is proven reliable technology. With me it's user comfort and environmental enhancement, cost and practicality which are the keys, obviously. Spending money on development on a controller, visual aids, sensing equipment ect can be extremely costly and gives no return if the gamer feels it is alien to normal usage or there overly complex. But on the other hand, it can pay dividends like the Wii guitar, basic in concept and fun to use and everybody knows what a guitar is so there was a familiarity about the controller. It gave people fun and feed a little ego side that everybody has. On the same lines as those who use a hair brush as a mic in front of the mirror to their favourite music when they where young and when nobody was about. Yes, it's exclusive to one product, but those factors worked and popularity served. Elite is different in so many ways and I cannot see it gaining a wider player base like the Wii. It'll be a nightmare to break new ground and come out a winner if one is thinking exclusive to Elite technological merchandising.
Thinking aloud... oh dear!
I have noticed that players in Elite Dangerous use a menu system to select a target, losing valuable seconds in flight or a fight. If anyone is going to develop anything, then why not a visual tracker built into an adapted headset, that scans where your eyes are looking. I recall a little home computer that was designed by Mr Braden for retail $25. I don't know if it became commercially viable. But that sort of thinking combined with optical tracking could reduce the need for users to constantly use buttons or voice attack. The user could scan down a menu visually and then focus on the selection before saying "select". Or look at a target through their cockpit screen and say "target". It's just a thought. Looking thought the thread, it's just an adapted idea.
Thinking aloud... oh dear!
I have noticed that players in Elite Dangerous use a menu system to select a target, losing valuable seconds in flight or a fight. If anyone is going to develop anything, then why not a visual tracker built into an adapted headset, that scans where your eyes are looking. I recall a little home computer that was designed by Mr Braden for retail $25. I don't know if it became commercially viable. But that sort of thinking combined with optical tracking could reduce the need for users to constantly use buttons or voice attack. The user could scan down a menu visually and then focus on the selection before saying "select". Or look at a target through their cockpit screen and say "target". It's just a thought. Looking thought the thread, it's just an adapted idea.
Gonna necro this thread. I'd like to see a change backwards to the time when the game released is a finished polished product. When the Devs had only the one chance to get it right, and if not then the product failed. Now they can pump out half finished crap and promise an "expansion" or DLC. Accountability should start when I buy the game take it home and it sucks. Don't give me excuses about future updates. Finish what you start or admit you couldn't get it done.
Too many companies today care less about what's good for games (thus good for long term profits and sustainability) than what's good for short term gains. Call of Duty is an excellent example of such mindset. It seems they never really think any further than a year or two away. Just hash out the same game over and over like a sportsgame made by EA, and dice up the total content of the finished product and release the rest of the game in "expansions" to make more money. Andif a CoD title flops with its core followers, who cares? Because, either way, the next CoD will release within two years. And if the whole franchise eventually tanks from a complete lack of originality, then who cares, right?They already made an absurd amount of money from their lazy programming and lack of loyalty to their loyal followers. I realized this long ago and gave upon CoD. I probably would have never played it at all if it weren't for my FPS loving friends. But, after Modern Warfare 2, I just refused. Just like I gave up on Halo. The first Halo was in fact an amazing game, deserving of the "combat evolved" claim on the front of the box. But, their sequels were mere regurgitated chunks of the franchise's former glory. And what is Bungie, the company that developed the game, doing today? For one, they're not making any more Halo titles (got tired of beating a dead horse). Secondly, they're constantly hyping and marketing Destiny, which plays just like a Halo sequel but with several "expansions" planned for the future, and I use the term expansions very loosely since data mining has yielded tons of evidence that the game sold on release was not the entire game. And this is the point I begin to resemble a cartoon character in real life with a red face, steam shooting out my ears, and the loud whistle of a piping hot kettle emanating from my head.
Now, let me first state that I always loved the idea of updates being available for games. This way, a dedicated development team loyal to its fans (and potential fans) can fix problems with the finished product for years to come and release actual expansions deserving of the $20, $30, $40 listed. Is that what update features are currently being used for? Of course, no. It's an easy out for lazy and/or rushed programmers and money hungry publishers. Let us not think, however, that this issue is limited to FSP games on consoles. No, no, no. Two of my all time favorite franchises have also been used as a means to milk more money out of loyal fans- those franchises being SimCity and Civilization. I've been playing both since they first released on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (sorry PC folks, I didn't have a computer in the 1990s). SimCity and Civilization has gotten better with every release. But Civilization 5 was released with far less features than its predecessor, with those features released over two years as "expansions". For example, in Civ 4 you could found a religion. In Civ 5, its an "update" from an "expansion". In Civ 4 you could create a map and scenario that could be played in single player and multiplayer. In Civ 5, which the developer claimed to be the most mod-able Civ ever, you can only play custom maps and scenarios in single player. Why would they do this? Because now they sell maps and scenarios, and since modders could make better maps and scenarios, this couldn't be allowed as it would make selling maps and scenarios pointless. So, will I boycott Civ 6? Well, no, but I will be extremely cautious and patient, waiting two years after the game's release and buying the "complete edition" for $50 or $60 rather than buying half of the game on release for $50, then the rest for $30 a pop as they come out.
And I really have to try hard to contain myself with regards to the SimCity 2013 reboot. The game's new interface is the best yet, and the graphics are great. But, what's the most important aspect of playing a game? Being able to play it! SimCity 2013 is so bugged and flawed that after a certain point its just not playable. Students and workers begin going missing, traffic gets clogged where it should not, vehicles for vital services (such as garbage trucks and school buses) leave your city and never return, technology level of the city declines due to missing students and workers which is dangerous for a city with a nuclear power plant, updates and "expansions" rarely fix problems and even when they do they simply create other problems.... I could go on until the Earth crashes into the sun, but you get the point. Electronic Arts killed this franchise because I will not even consider purchasing the new SimCity title (whenever it releases). Maxis and EA have undone the decades of hard work and expensive marketing (millions of dollars) it took to build up the large following they had for the franchise, all because EA wanted to make more money right now. I mean, this type of behavior might work for EA's sports-game, but not for a sim game. It's a shame to have to give up SimCity, but its better than wasting money and time on something that's straight up broken on release. Let the buyer beware, right? Well, just about every game I've purchased in the past couple years has taught me that new releases aren't worth a penny. Why pay the premium price for a game on release if its not going to work right for several months or years? Just wait and buy later if the game works.
Oh, boy, I can rant to no end about this topic... but I'll make just a few more points and end this massive rant.
1. A new technology available to gamers should be available as an option if practical. Making a game that allows controllers and the Kinnect on Xbox One is a good thing. Forcing players to play only with the Kinnect is bad. Options in how to play a game is always good. When the Wii first came out, the Wiimote was a fun accessory. But, being forced to play with the Wiimote and excluding the ability to play with a traditional controller killed it for me. Imagine trying to play an entire Zelda game with the Wiimote.... I didn't get far before losing interest.
2. Updates and expansions should be just that- they should not be pieces taken from the finished product, repackaged and sold later as "expansions". Also, the game should work well for the most part, needing updates only here and there where necessary. So, actual expansions and updates are good features all games should have. Constantly changing the rules of the game (Civilization V) and releasing a broken game because it can be updated in a hurried rush (SimCity 2013 reboot) is not good.
3. Having the choice to play online at any time is good. Being forced to play online only is not, with MMORPGs being an exception (sort of). Here, I am impressed by Elite: Dangerous in allowing single player games, private games among friends, and massive online gaming. Having options is a must and can be a major selling point for a game (Civilization IV). I don't think a game ever failed from having too many options. But, not having enough or any options is a game killer, especially with sim games.
Anyways, I'm tired so I'll end it here. Feels good to get that off my chest, though. Thanks for reading and take care, folks! Happy Holidays!
Now, let me first state that I always loved the idea of updates being available for games. This way, a dedicated development team loyal to its fans (and potential fans) can fix problems with the finished product for years to come and release actual expansions deserving of the $20, $30, $40 listed. Is that what update features are currently being used for? Of course, no. It's an easy out for lazy and/or rushed programmers and money hungry publishers. Let us not think, however, that this issue is limited to FSP games on consoles. No, no, no. Two of my all time favorite franchises have also been used as a means to milk more money out of loyal fans- those franchises being SimCity and Civilization. I've been playing both since they first released on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (sorry PC folks, I didn't have a computer in the 1990s). SimCity and Civilization has gotten better with every release. But Civilization 5 was released with far less features than its predecessor, with those features released over two years as "expansions". For example, in Civ 4 you could found a religion. In Civ 5, its an "update" from an "expansion". In Civ 4 you could create a map and scenario that could be played in single player and multiplayer. In Civ 5, which the developer claimed to be the most mod-able Civ ever, you can only play custom maps and scenarios in single player. Why would they do this? Because now they sell maps and scenarios, and since modders could make better maps and scenarios, this couldn't be allowed as it would make selling maps and scenarios pointless. So, will I boycott Civ 6? Well, no, but I will be extremely cautious and patient, waiting two years after the game's release and buying the "complete edition" for $50 or $60 rather than buying half of the game on release for $50, then the rest for $30 a pop as they come out.
And I really have to try hard to contain myself with regards to the SimCity 2013 reboot. The game's new interface is the best yet, and the graphics are great. But, what's the most important aspect of playing a game? Being able to play it! SimCity 2013 is so bugged and flawed that after a certain point its just not playable. Students and workers begin going missing, traffic gets clogged where it should not, vehicles for vital services (such as garbage trucks and school buses) leave your city and never return, technology level of the city declines due to missing students and workers which is dangerous for a city with a nuclear power plant, updates and "expansions" rarely fix problems and even when they do they simply create other problems.... I could go on until the Earth crashes into the sun, but you get the point. Electronic Arts killed this franchise because I will not even consider purchasing the new SimCity title (whenever it releases). Maxis and EA have undone the decades of hard work and expensive marketing (millions of dollars) it took to build up the large following they had for the franchise, all because EA wanted to make more money right now. I mean, this type of behavior might work for EA's sports-game, but not for a sim game. It's a shame to have to give up SimCity, but its better than wasting money and time on something that's straight up broken on release. Let the buyer beware, right? Well, just about every game I've purchased in the past couple years has taught me that new releases aren't worth a penny. Why pay the premium price for a game on release if its not going to work right for several months or years? Just wait and buy later if the game works.
Oh, boy, I can rant to no end about this topic... but I'll make just a few more points and end this massive rant.
1. A new technology available to gamers should be available as an option if practical. Making a game that allows controllers and the Kinnect on Xbox One is a good thing. Forcing players to play only with the Kinnect is bad. Options in how to play a game is always good. When the Wii first came out, the Wiimote was a fun accessory. But, being forced to play with the Wiimote and excluding the ability to play with a traditional controller killed it for me. Imagine trying to play an entire Zelda game with the Wiimote.... I didn't get far before losing interest.
2. Updates and expansions should be just that- they should not be pieces taken from the finished product, repackaged and sold later as "expansions". Also, the game should work well for the most part, needing updates only here and there where necessary. So, actual expansions and updates are good features all games should have. Constantly changing the rules of the game (Civilization V) and releasing a broken game because it can be updated in a hurried rush (SimCity 2013 reboot) is not good.
3. Having the choice to play online at any time is good. Being forced to play online only is not, with MMORPGs being an exception (sort of). Here, I am impressed by Elite: Dangerous in allowing single player games, private games among friends, and massive online gaming. Having options is a must and can be a major selling point for a game (Civilization IV). I don't think a game ever failed from having too many options. But, not having enough or any options is a game killer, especially with sim games.
Anyways, I'm tired so I'll end it here. Feels good to get that off my chest, though. Thanks for reading and take care, folks! Happy Holidays!
Last edited:
because touchpad gameplay is awful
I NEVER want my keyboard,joypad,joystick replaced with a touch device
I have GTA vice city on my phone and it also has the virtual touch joysticks you speak of. It is virtually unplayable. saying touchscreen and mouse in the same sentence should be banned, a touch screen will never give the sensitivity or response of a good mouse.
touch devices will be the death of REAL gaming.
Last edited:
New is Good When Player Creativity is inspired
When new elements to games inspire player creativity that has to be good. Likewise old can also be good if the result is also increased creativity. Good gaming is about shaping your own story - and even better shaping your own story inter-twined with other players.
When new elements to games inspire player creativity that has to be good. Likewise old can also be good if the result is also increased creativity. Good gaming is about shaping your own story - and even better shaping your own story inter-twined with other players.
Dude, you'll see soon enough that this game has no depth at all... you can mine (no status), trade(spreadsheets in space), explore (fly somewhere and point your ship at a planet til your scanner beeps....repeat ad infinitum), you can fight npc's (super easy) or Humans (hard to find,...also most people dc from losing fights with no penalty) . that's it.... there\s nothing to find (except planets and stars...of which there are like 6 types of each, oh yeah you can find big old space rocks too....weeeeee)>> it's really another case of a dev releasing an unfinished game.... there is potential, but it's severely limited due to the architecture of the game and decisions the devs have made that will not be reversed. The game looks awesome in the DK2... and I'll be playing it til no man's sky comes out, but really,..i'm just biding time with a product that disappointed me until something I really like comes out. too darn bad SC is so far out..... just stuck in this repetitive grind til NMS i guess. unless they add some actual content in 1.1.
I suppose Changing the Game Slowly after the core fans have got to grips with the fundamentals and then only with group consensus.
PROTECT CORE features, I like Elite basics, happy when i find good value trade routes, happy when I can see my CMDR moving up through ranks and where i fit ingame; I want to be a 'Prince' in the Empire ... Garrrrrr.
More FREEDOM is Good for a Games, People like to think they have had a PERSONAL IMPACT in the Game World: Levolution in BF4, Elite Dangerous - Stopping a Faction building a station.
There has to be BALANCE for different Personality of Gamers. FREEDOM is Good when it expands the game World and Players to More Possibilities but not good when you can just destroy a newbie every few seconds.
Rushing Game out to beat competition and appease Sharholders :
DONT FORCE players down a path that generates a company More Potential Profits which compromises core game play.
One fine example of when NOT to Change a Game was Battlefield FPS, in a hurry to get game out against Call of Duty they had a Limited number of Control Set ups. Pushing people into playing Cack handed.
This would of frustrated people playing the game for the first time as their favorite control mappings wouldn't be available and this would greatly limit the accessibility to the game.
ITS GOOD WHEN you INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY to the game by having full remapping options to cater for any exodus from different games or genres.
PROTECT CORE features, I like Elite basics, happy when i find good value trade routes, happy when I can see my CMDR moving up through ranks and where i fit ingame; I want to be a 'Prince' in the Empire ... Garrrrrr.
More FREEDOM is Good for a Games, People like to think they have had a PERSONAL IMPACT in the Game World: Levolution in BF4, Elite Dangerous - Stopping a Faction building a station.
There has to be BALANCE for different Personality of Gamers. FREEDOM is Good when it expands the game World and Players to More Possibilities but not good when you can just destroy a newbie every few seconds.
Rushing Game out to beat competition and appease Sharholders :
DONT FORCE players down a path that generates a company More Potential Profits which compromises core game play.
One fine example of when NOT to Change a Game was Battlefield FPS, in a hurry to get game out against Call of Duty they had a Limited number of Control Set ups. Pushing people into playing Cack handed.
This would of frustrated people playing the game for the first time as their favorite control mappings wouldn't be available and this would greatly limit the accessibility to the game.
ITS GOOD WHEN you INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY to the game by having full remapping options to cater for any exodus from different games or genres.
- Status