Prey Demo Out Now

[demagogue]

Well, being a phil major, I can't miss out on this action:

 

The fallacy is that causation doesn't follow by logical implication but by empirical expectation (that is, it's an exercise in probability and statistics, not logical inference) ... textbook Hume. So a later FPS doesn't have to suck necessarily just because it's an FPS; but if all the empirical factors are in place that made all the others suck it's statistically very likely to suck (for Oddity, anyway) as a matter of experience. Not exactly what I'd consider a very killer argument here. At best we're talking about, like, a statistically very small chance (in Oddity's worldview, anyway) that *this* FPS will be the one in a million that breaks out of the cycle all the other past FPS's have fallen into and be amazing. If he's playing the percents, you can't blame him. Then again, it's a free demo, maybe a few minutes time is worth the 1:1 million chance?

Edited June 26, 2006 by demagogue

[Komag]

Yeah, I was a Phil major too, I think a bunch of us were

[oDDity]

So you would play chess with the same amateur guy who never learns a thing... again and again..

Good idea, let's compare chess with pretending to shoot aliens in the head for two hours, that'll work.

Why don't you just play cowboys and indians with some 5 year olds, they'll improve and give you a better challenge each time.

[oDDity]

Well, being a phil major, I can't miss out on this action:

 

The fallacy is that causation doesn't follow by logical implication but by empirical expectation (that is, it's an exercise in probability and statistics, not logical inference) ... textbook Hume. So a later FPS doesn't have to suck necessarily just because it's an FPS; but if all the empirical factors are in place that made all the others suck it's statistically very likely to suck (for Oddity, anyway) as a matter of experience. Not exactly what I'd consider a very killer argument here. At best we're talking about, like, a statistically very small chance (in Oddity's worldview, anyway) that *this* FPS will be the one in a million that breaks out of the cycle all the other past FPS's have fallen into and be amazing. If he's playing the percents, you can't blame him. Then again, it's a free demo, maybe a few minutes time is worth the 1:1 million chance?

 

Exactly, some people who read the basics of logical argument don't seem to understand it's relevance and relationship to real world arguments.

They sound like the soprt of people who would try to have a relationship with someone based entirely on mathematical equations, and then spend the rest of their life wondering why did didn't work out, becasue 'their sums were definitely all correct - it shoud have worked dammit!!'

[_Atti_]

You dont get my point...

You say why is it necessary for new fpss to release there is enough already?

 

You can beat an fps many many ways(even if its linear, get the point here) but you will soon lose interest beating it as it loses its challenge.

 

I didnt compare, i just brougt up an example, and dont overlook the condition i gave: "with the same amateur guy who never learns a thing"

You see no one is really like that and thats why it wasnt really a compare,and from the point of my example they are the same anyway..A game with certain rules that you can win many ways but still doing the same thing. Just as in chess the only way to win is a checkmate in fps its shooting.

 

SO if that dumb chess player who will never come up with any new moves would sit before you, and lets say you love playing chess, wouldnt you be happy to have someone else to play with? Your options, your moves are endless but you lose the challenge as you get to know your enemy, it gets boring..A new fps is a new chess player for you to play with..Fpss are not evolving like a real chess opponent, they are more of a new situation on the table with an enemy who has limited options, thats why they keep coming, and we're not playing doom to that day..

[oDDity]

Surely the relevant point here is, that if you want a real evolving challenge, don't sit on your own playing some dumbass alien-squashing computer game, challenge someone to a game in real life.

Anyway, they are quite capable of wrting dymanic, unpredictable AI these days, so you should be able to play the same game without it becoming stale. Aside from that, virtually all shotoers are multiplayer capable, so the challenge comes from real opponents, and therefore the game itself does not matter, and you don't need any new ones.

I mean, people are still playing football with the same rules after hundreds of years, they don't need to think up a new game every year. WHy do shooter fans need half a dozen new variaitons on their game every year?

I'll tell you why, it's because the initial premise of the FPS computer game is so utterly shit, it doesn't stand up for more than a few months before you need a change.

[sparhawk]

I mean, people are still playing football with the same rules after hundreds of years, they don't need to think up a new game every year. WHy do shooter fans need half a dozen new variaitons on their game every year?

I'll tell you why, it's because the initial premise of the FPS computer game is so utterly shit, it doesn't stand up for more than a few months before you need a change.

 

That's simply wrong. Personally I played Enemy Territory for a long time. At least longer than a year, which is the longest time I played an online game. I would have been perfectly happy with new maps, because, as you say, the game itself doesn't really matter.

 

The major reason, why new games like this are constantly coming it are twofold. One reason is, because the companies wants to get more money, which is easier to claim with a new game, then just adding new content to an old one. And of course the second reason is technical. The improvements in graphics, physics and others, require usually a new engine. Hacking new code into an older engine doesn't work forever. Game engines are usually quite specialiced and not that generic. So adding new code usually disrupts the original design, and at some point it becomes more efficient to write a new engine, then writing additional hacks. And of course, at this point you are in deep enough that you can also create the new game as well. Especially in shooters it doesn't matter much. I never understood the need for a story in shooters, because I simply walk through them shooting everything. The story is nice but not really relevant.

 

A good example is Painkiller. The story is good enough, but I never saw the point of the story in relation to the gameplay. I liked Painkiller for what it was, and if it were presented the same way without a story I would still have liked it the same.

[OrbWeaver]

I think oDDity would be a good example of something that appears and behaves like fire but isn't.

[sparhawk]

[oDDity]

That's simply wrong. Personally I played Enemy Territory for a long time. At least longer than a year, which is the longest time I played an online game. I would have been perfectly happy with new maps, because, as you say, the game itself doesn't really matter.

YOu're agreeing with me then, you just need to buy one multiplayer shooter and play it forever, no need for 20 'new' ones every year. Wouldn't you rather have a different kind of game to play than yet another shooter to add to your collection?

 

The major reason, why new games like this are constantly coming it are twofold. One reason is, because the companies wants to get more money, which is easier to claim with a new game, then just adding new content to an old one.

Agree with me again then? I already said the reason they make them is to fleece the dumbass habitual public every month. They release a slight variant on the FPS genre countless times a year and charge 50 euos for each one.

And of course the second reason is technical. The improvements in graphics, physics and others, require usually a new engine.

In that case, we only need a new FPS every 3 years or so. The improvments in graphics and AI from one year to the next is negligble. You only see a noticble change if you look at games which are released at least 3 years apart.

How many FPS/action game are released every year though? I wouldn't even want to count them.

You claim they all have improvments in AI and graphics over the other ones, and that justifies them?

The majority of these pathetic FPS/aciton games are made using the same couple of engines FFS.

No, the first reason is 95% if it. It's all about making easy money for the publishers, and nothing is easier than throwing another shooter together.

[sparhawk]

YOu're agreeing with me then, you just need to buy one multiplayer shooter and play it forever, no need for 20 'new' ones every year.

 

If it's online, definitely.

 

Wouldn't you rather have a different kind of game to play than yet another shooter to add to your collection?

 

It depends. Shooter is not shooter, just because you happen to shoot a lot. And if there are other games, I certainly don't mind, but somtimes I'm just int he mood for a shooter. Not much thinking, just reaction.

 

In that case, we only need a new FPS every 3 years or so. The improvments in graphics and AI from one year to the next is negligble. You only see a noticble change if you look at games which are released at least 3 years apart.

 

That's rigth. But of course there is more then one company and each one wants it's share. And since we all know that big companies are didacted by shareholder value, of course they are using the style that is the most sure winner and costs less.

 

No the first reason is 95% if it. It's all about making easy money for the publishers.

 

Of course. You can see this in all kind of medias. Radio, TV, Cinema, Science, even books to some extent. If the content is dictated by the shareholder value then it has to follow the path which promises a certain success.

[oDDity]

My problem with it is a the complete lack of imagination and creativity that is shown in computer games. There are only a few genres, and most of them aren't new, they were copied from real world games. The RPG existed before computers, sports games just copy real world sports, action games just copy action moves.

Where are all the completely new types of games that are being devised sspecifically for the realm of the compuer gamer?

[Fingernail]

True, but it would pretty stupid to assume that it wasn't going to. That is the difference between pure logic and rationality.

 

or is it the difference between rationality and Oddity?

[woah]

That's simply wrong. Personally I played Enemy Territory for a long time. At least longer than a year, which is the longest time I played an online game. I would have been perfectly happy with new maps, because, as you say, the game itself doesn't really matter.

Oddly enough, I've been playing Counter-Strike for 6 years (despite a few month period here and there). I'm not sure why, but it seems that every new first person shooter that comes out cannot replace CS as a primary game, or let alone hold me for over a month or two. I always come back to Counter-Strike. Even though I do not have broadband or multiplayer-gaming capable internet, whenever I'm at a friend's, CS is our primary choice of play; all of the others are temporary.

 

I am always curious as to what makes the game so attractive and dominating over other games, and I find it odd as--given the fact that 90% of the shooters released bore the heck out of me--Counter-Strike's gameplay is as simple or simpler than all of them.

[Denny]

There is one more thing to add to the equation. People like me want to play the same thing with new levels and such, making it unknown. That adds to the challenge in its own way. Playing multiplayer just adds to the challenge but there's actually nothing "new" after a while.

 

I like to play games without knowing what's going to happen around the next corner. It's the same thing with movies; I can't watch 99% of them a second time because I already know what's happening, making it boring. Some people want to explore at the same time as making some mindless shooting and that's hard to get by playing the same game more than twice.

 

It's not like you'll feel the sensation of surprise if you know the ins and out of a level.

 

Mindless shooters works fine for me as it's a way to relax behind the screen some evenings. Having an advance story or such is not welcome always. Think of some movies that are so complex, making you watch it a second time. Sometimes you just want to watch a brainless action movie, just to relax for a while and that's what I want alot of times from a game.

[Forsaken]

Played through the demo recently.

 

Well, I must say what I definately didn't like is DooM 3 style graphics/locations... Boring... I actually liked the afterlife place a LOT. The game has the same old boring human vs. aliens in space setting... If anyone thought the idea of a cherokee guy out there was original - the same thing in Turok 2, they had a guy from an Indian tribe who came to shoot aliens, and he had multiple healths too (I am Turok!). Regarding spirit walk - I don't look at it as something that is used to walk through weird barriers, it is actually a tactical thing. You can shoot in spirit mode completely safe. I tried that thousands of times in multiplayer - going in spirit mode to kill somebody - it is much safer. As the last resort you will at least hurt the enemy. So I really like it.

 

Weapons are same as ever... the machine gun is weird-looking but shoots the same, and a weird scope that is hard to use, the green spitter = flack cannon, then a grenade launcher, then the plasma gun that you can load with funky stuff - the sunbeam was interesting, and there was the other machine gun + bomb as alt fire. Turok 2 still rules weaponwise.

 

Levels are fun because of gravity tricks. Especially in multiplayer. Single player - not so much, the game is very-very linear (no, no, no, no...), not a lot of tricks. Levels look boring because we saw all that space stuff 20 times already. And no sense of direction of course, because there is only one direction you can possibly go.

 

I don't even want to mention aliens that are at the brink of greatest boringness.

 

And I guess my whole post is boring.

 

Another game to spend time on... but I think Crysis will be better.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Forsaken

[oDDity]

There is one more thing to add to the equation. People like me want to play the same thing with new levels and such, making it unknown. That adds to the challenge in its own way. Playing multiplayer just adds to the challenge but there's actually nothing "new" after a while.

 

I like to play games without knowing what's going to happen around the next corner. It's the same thing with movies; I can't watch 99% of them a second time because I already know what's happening, making it boring. Some people want to explore at the same time as making some mindless shooting and that's hard to get by playing the same game more than twice.

Not a problem, most shooters come with map editors, so you're never short of new maps and new 'corners'

You go on to say you don't care for plot or story, just the mindless shooting part, so obviously the quality of the new maps are not an issue.

A game called nosferatu even had a radom map generator.

 

Mindless shooters works fine for me as it's a way to relax behind the screen some evenings.

 

'I like to relax by repeatedly pretending to splatter the brains of invadiing hordes of aliens or mutants over the nearest wall with a big gun'

I hope you realise how bizarre thsat statement is.

[Schatten]

oDDity, I don't remember if you mentioned it, but did you play (the original) Deus Ex? If so, I'd be interested in your thoughts about it.

 

I agree with you in almost all points. The last FPS I enjoyed was Doom 2, after that the genre got boring for me. I liked crossbreeds like System Shock or Deus Ex though, especially the latter. Deus Ex was the iteration of the FPS genre I had hope to see years earlier, but sadly, evolution pretty much stopped there.

 

If Thief 2 was your first game*, you've missed the golden times of the C64, when a 170kb disc held 10 games with 10 different game ideas. If you don't mind pixels as big as your head, get an emulator and browse through some old games. Hell, everybody should do that, if only to see how boring the game market today really is.

 

Edit:

*Sorry, missed the "first PC game" bit. What platforms did you start with?

[oDDity]

I had a nintendo 20 years ago, and played arcade games before that.

Didn't take any interest in games at all diuring the ninties, and came back into it 99/2000 after I got a PC (primarily to find all this great porn I heard was freely flowing on the internet)

I was pretty astounded at how far games had come since the last arcade games I had played, such as street fighter.

Didn't take long for the novelty to wear off though, as I soon realised I was be asked t play almost the same game every time.

I guess the best thing to do would be to play no games at all for another 10 years, and be equally astounded and invigorated again when I pick one up in 2016.

I did try Deus Ex long ago, I can't remember exactly what I thought of it, but I didn't play it very far, so I obviosuly didn't like it very much.

Maybe should give it another go.

I didn't hate every FPS. THere was RtCW. I liked that simply because it was the first shotoer I ever played, so everything was fresh. I liked Serious Sam because it reminded me of playing space invaders 20 years ago, I think it had a really fresh take on the FPS, so that deserves credit. Far Cey was ok, because of the massive environments, the freedom, the stealth, you weren't forced to pay it as a shooter (until near the end, at which point I stopped playing.

[Denny]

Not a problem, most shooters come with map editors, so you're never short of new maps and new 'corners'

You go on to say you don't care for plot or story, just the mindless shooting part, so obviously the quality of the new maps are not an issue.

A game called nosferatu even had a radom map generator.

'I like to relax by repeatedly pretending to splatter the brains of invadiing hordes of aliens or mutants over the nearest wall with a big gun'

I hope you realise how bizarre thsat statement is.

 

You really like to interpret messages your own way don't you? I never said I wanted it ALL the time. Also the single player maps made by fans usually sucks horribly. Just because I said I like to have some mindless shooting doesn't mean I don't care about level quality.

 

Also I don't care what the hell I'm shooting on screen, it's just a bunch of pixels and polygons anyway. And yes, I can relax while shooting those brains out.

 

I don't think there's any reason to argue anymore here, both sides have decided not to back out with their argument and thinks their point of view is the right. It's a loop of doom.

[OrbWeaver]

'I like to relax by repeatedly pretending to splatter the brains of invadiing hordes of aliens or mutants over the nearest wall with a big gun'

I hope you realise how bizarre thsat statement is.

 

Actually it makes a lot of sense - activities that are repetitive and intellectually undemanding are often used for relaxation purposes. I enjoy the mental challenge of chess, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "relaxing".

[Maximius]

Actually it makes a lot of sense - activities that are repetitive and intellectually undemanding are often used for relaxation purposes. I enjoy the mental challenge of chess, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "relaxing".

 

 

Do you play online?

[oDDity]

Actually it makes a lot of sense - activities that are repetitive and intellectually undemanding are often used for relaxation purposes.

 

Yeah, if you wre playing on the easiest setting I suppose, and it was a really easy game to start with, but if you're playing on any sort of challenging setting, then it is not relaxing.

[OrbWeaver]

Do you play online?

 

I have done, but didn't really like it because 1) I am not spectacularly good, and even with appropriate ratings tended to get my ass kicked, and 2) I much prefer the face-to-face social setting. Without the psychological cues the game loses a lot of its appeal.

 

Yeah, if you wre playing on the easiest setting I suppose, and it was a really easy game to start with, but if you're playing on any sort of challenging setting, then it is not relaxing.

 

Fair point. I only ever play on God mode and spend most of my time looking at the models and textures to see how it was done, so it's debatable whether I actually "play" the game at all.

[demagogue]

By the way, maybe the moment has passed, but while I'm thinking about it.

 

I don't like the analogy between things like chess, baseball, football (either kind) unchanging vs. FPSs being rehashed over and over.

 

Aside from the fact that FPSs at least purport to be story-centric (so like movies and comics will continue to be rehashed, even for plots that are carbon copies). But even thinking about them *just* as games, things like chess and football happen to have overseeing institutions that have a monopoloy on the "official" rules.

 

You even sometimes see people trying to come out with alternative chess and football leagues every now and then, but they usually don't last, not only because the gameplay isn't as good (at least IMO, sometimes they seem just as good), but because there's strong institutional pressure to keep the official game "pure".

 

But FPSs are market driven through-and-through, no monopoly on what is "official" gameplay ... just a lot of market research, a very competitive field, and a nervous, conservative investing environment. Add all this up, you get a lot of product being churned out, all swirling around a very small set of themes (they all see the same market trends) and distinguishing themselves along pretty nominal "stylistic" differences.

 

It seems to me if you want to change the product you have to change the economic incentives. Things like chess and football were lucky in that respect. It could be argued that it's basically a historical accident these games turned into national games, which led to "official" rules and official institutions to enforce a monopoly on "good" gameplay. There are plenty of reasons to think this won't happen for FPSs anytime soon (for one thing, they are often reviled by the official-decreeing establishment).

 

Of course, there are other ways you could change the economic environment, e.g., by supporting independent dev's with subsidies or contractual or investment incentives (sort of like how the independent movie industry works). It's acutally a very similar debate going on with independent movies; how do you change economic incentives to keep good movies coming out and keeping them from collapsing into Hollywood drivel? It's actually a hard problem.

Edited June 27, 2006 by demagogue