pasternakski
Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
|
First, I think y'all are being too hard on dpstafford, whose post invokes the classic line from "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" in an obvious hyperbolic sally into ironic humor, the victim of which could be just about any of us and our silly beliefs. My guess is that he's just trying to suggest the same thing most of us are saying here, that graphics and audio of any kind are only desirable as they enhance the playability of the game and add a REASONABLE amount of "kick" to the game experience.
I also agree completely with what VictorH has suggested in his posts, that utility is good, fluff is not. Perfectly reasonable, as far as I'm concerned.
I believe from your statements, Marc, that you feel pretty much the same way, and that Matrix/2by3 is not about to wander off into the XBox wilderness.
If, however, the indication is that the emphasis is going to shift from precisely designed, intellectually challenging historical simulations to "graphics and gee whiz rule, man" principles, I can only refer you to my initial post on this thread that attempts to depict the sorry history of computer wargaming when cute conquered competent and stimulation overrode simulation, all in a failed attempt to improve sales. This, as I see it, will never be more than a niche market. You can't afford to lose the "niche-niks" who are already on your side in pursuit of an uncertain and ill-defined market. I wish you success and hope you'll be around feeding my computer wargaming habit for a long time.
The early games, like Grigsby's Carrier Force and War in the South Pacific, were marvels to me because they had to work within the constraints of 40k of computer memory and those 5 1/4" floppies plugged into what didn't amount to much more than a pitiful portable picnic record player. Before long, half a megabyte was available to designers, and things got real sloppy. Economy of effort and conciseness of design got lost. So, we got such things as maps with individual search planes crawling around on them like a bunch of ants and making no sense at all in their reports. When carrier combat took place, you got a half dozen stock videos showing explosions, planes flying about willy-nilly, sailors' faces with panic-stricken looks on them, and the rest of that nonsense. Now that gigabyte-sized games are possible, what do you do with all that power? I say, "Devote your efforts to improving the game." If that also means improvement in video and audio, great, but the game's the thing, as far as I'm concerned.
UV has done a good job with its visuals and audio. Remember, though, the discussions that took place soon after UV v. 1.0 came out over the "disappointing" nature of the visual representation of surface battles, with what I call the "junior high school dance" configuration (the boys line up against one wall and the girls line up against the other one and nobody crosses the middle of the dance floor). At that time, in response to a player's suggestion (modestly advanced by yours truly, of all people), Matrix took the position that more "realistic" depiction of surface battles was not in the cards, because what you were seeing on the screen was just about what was happening in the code. Okay, I'm cool with that.
Anybody noticed anything funny about the relative sizes of aircraft in the aerial combat screen? If a B-17 is a heavy bomber, P-39s must be the size of the alien mothership in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
And so on. These things do not bother your dedicated players of UV (and firm believers in Matrix/2by3), because we are more interested in playing, not watching.
Of course, I agree that Matrix/2by3 should be on the cutting edge in all aspects of computer game design. I have suggested in the past that I would like to see you on this edge with regard to AI design, which I think would be a far more fruitful area of endeavor than creating prettified graphics and "gee whiz" noises (by the way, has anybody else had his submarines attacking to the sound of a fighter plane making a shooting pass?).
I just hope that priorities remain in reasonable order and that future designs are not adversely affected by concentration of effort on peripheral, not central, concerns that can stand in the way of effective simulation design.
_____________________________
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
|
Printable Version
Re: Re: good ole days? - 
- 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread