Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lack of quality

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Vegeta
    Registered Users Posts: 11,393 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    Retr0gamer wrote:
    wow! the reedom to beat rabbits to annihilation. thats so interesting. why can't a developer make a sand box with things that are actuakly interesing to do in terms of tasks. TBH I'm waiting n that Sega Yakuza sim to be released in the west. Even ifit is lonear as fook it has to better than the mess san andreas is.


    You have obviously never played morrowind to the finish, that game is fantastic, in my opinion it is the best single player RPG ever. Oblivion looks even better and the devs made an effort to improve the weaker sides to the game, such as magic, playing as a thief etc.

    How can you be a gaming fan and not applaude their efforts, even if RPGs aint your cup of tea you still have to give credit where credt is due.


  • Options
    #33
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,396 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    It seems to me that the games I am spending far and away most of my time on are made by small companies, practically cottage industries. TacOps was created by a single programmer. (Major Holdridge). Combat Mission (and the follow-ons) by a two-man team. Steel Beasts by a three-man team. All were released for purchase solely on the Internet. (The first two from Battlefront.com, the third from esimgames.com). Only after surprising Internet successes were they picked up by brick-and-mortar suppliers and put in boxes on shelves. It should be added, all have what would be considered to be low-quality graphics for their time. Steel Beasts was released in 2000. It used 640x480 unaccelerated graphics, which was positively archaic by the standards of the time (let alone now). Sales were nowhere near what the quality of the game deserved simply because people looked at the screenshots/box art and said 'no thanks.' Fortunately, seven or eight different militaries picked it up, and funded further development. If I rate a game by hours-played-per-dollar-spent, SB is definitely the winner.

    Anyone remember the ZX Spectrum? When you had 48K of RAM to play with, and only 7 colours, gameplay was far more important than graphics.

    At any rate, it seems to me that the best place to see a review of a game isn't the gaming review sites. They're too 'mass market' or else just don't know what they're on about. For example, doubtless when PCGamer (or whatever) comes out with their review of Steel Beasts Pro PE, they'll probably slate it for having graphics inferior to BF2, an outrageous price, lack of campaign, and a generally 'unfinished' feel. When you go to the 'subject matter' sites, however, such as SimHQ.com, Tank-Net.org and so on, you'll find people raving about a military-grade sim which is far and away the best at what it does which is publicly available, with a support infrastructure from a single-product team which is responsive and efficient because there are no other projects for them to move on to.

    I think the quality is still out there, I'm having a look at Dangerous Waters right now, the problem is that it's not being advertised much because ultimately, quality on its own doesn't sell.

    NTM


Advertisement