Hot posts in thread: Analysis of recent and current 4X games

I agree with you, excellent interpretation.

Specifically to the above, I am aware of this. But we could both agree that even a modest effort at upgrading those tests would be noticeably superior to what we have now.

 

Software and especially game tests are nowhere near those practiced by automotive industry . There is some theory about automated software testing but it's mostly practiced by companies working on long uptime systems or by those who have above average discipline. And let's face it, nowdays anybody can land a programming job. Back to tests, there is not much working theory on how to automate testing games which don't have neat definition of input and desired output and my involve a lot of randomness.

Design game mechanics takes very sharp critical mind and experience and as I said about programmer quality before, it's something everybody can do but most can't do it well. For example, who was game designer behind MoO:CtS and how did the game pan out?

On a contrary, as Chris says it's harder to make game run smoothly on i3. i7 will just power through performance issues.

I still don't get how 64-bit multicore means no pointers. There must have been more going on then those two things, like my MVC feature in Stareater. Initially the idea was to decouple game logic from GUI code but along the way I ended up rewriting whole codebase. From my perspective it was for the better, from player's perspective it's +3 years of development time for marginally better graphics.

 

Edward has added some excellent points. So much so that I wish to expand on some of these.

Being able to see the sweat on Lara Croft is nice and could catch my eye briefly... but

This is the pig and lipstick thing again. Take a really mediocre game and put the best graphics possible on it along with professional voice acting and what do you have?

A failure. A game that will be played once or twice and discarded as the reviews on-line rip it to shreds.

Now imagine the opposite. The graphics are nothing to get excited about and text replaces voice overs but the game is well thought out and executed, what do you get?

MoO2

Now about those devs and players in love with their machines.

Devs live in a high tech environment and their love of pushing that i7 is natural but counter-productive at times, still it can be understood and perhaps forgiven but devs need to understand that they are creating a game to appeal to players. Most players are not devs.

Players on the other hand who think that the specifications of their machine is some sort of status symbol remind me of some guys I grew up with. I'm talking about the guys who had wallets full of pictures...of their car. I wasn't impressed then and I'm not impressed now.

But personal feelings aside let me offer how I view this as a businessman. Any game coming out today, that cannot be played on at least a 3 year old off the shelf machine with an i3 just eliminated a very significant portion of its potential customer base before it even releases. Oh that's smart.

Edward is correct in stating that if the big boys can launch a bug riddled piece of trash then indies feel why not us too. They are both wrong and it is poor business. Unfortunately the players are at fault here as they feel that they cannot wait for a proper release, if players ever react negatively enough this will change.

He is also correct in bringing up proper project management, there is a distinct lack of discipline with that. No one is going to please every single player so don't even try.

I'll say it once more, there is a lack of standards here and this industry continues to get away with practices that would sink an auto-maker or ship-builder.

In my opinion, the first dev or AAA outfit that addresses these issues will gain a competitive edge that will last quite a while.

 

I can see the issue from both perspectives, both are correct and both mistaken at the same time.

Leaving aside any of the superfluous comments, I think the issue would be well served by taking a basic approach and addressing some issues that really make a game look bad but would not require breaking the bank to fix.

Top of the list? Bugs

No excuse can satisfy the consumer. Suppose I buy a new vehicle, I’m happily cruising down the highway and turn on the radio as my speed increases when the vehicle blows up. Would a bug be permissible here? Bugs can destroy a product that could otherwise shine and there is no excuse that is acceptable for them, sorry none.

I do not wish to go on a rant here but some steps could be taken to insure a better reception and impression. Clean up the dialog and spelling errors, kill the bugs and then take a good look at the mechanics. Do they serve a true game purpose? If yes keep them and polish them, if not then perhaps the resources could be better spent elsewhere.

I know some studios are tiny and have limited resources but most players are not going to sympathize if the product is poor. Any studio or developer, or for that matter anyone in any endeavor would be well served by being organized and methodical. Knowing where and when to commit your finite resources is not a skill that applies only to the military, it is a philosophy that always pays dividends and would be a good place to start in addressing some of these issues.

DLC is an issue that I address case by case. While I do not speak for or claim to know the official policy of Paradox, I know what it “seems” like and it is a turn-off. My advice to anyone creating any type of game is to make sure your product can stand “alone” prior to additional content being created. In this manner DLC becomes a bonus not a must and that will generate good will.

Think about the logic here. A Dev could concentrate their efforts and focus on fewer areas while reducing costs at the same time. The result would be that whatever comes out as a first release would not seem amateurish. If and when a DLC comes out the player will already have a positive image of the dev releasing it.

In my opinion, the central issue is that game development does not follow the standards of other industries and is permitted to be lax in a way that would not work in almost any other industry, this needs to stop.

To be treated as a professional, one must be a professional.

 

I visit explorminate from time to time as well but it lacks the feel of space sector. For some reason it has a more commercial feel to it and that takes away from the more intimate and personal appeal held by space sector initially.
None of you knew me prior to PSS but I on the other hand knew you. The honesty and passion I found in some of the reviews posted by Adam, Keith and "muh favourite", Edward, went a long way towards influencing my decision to commit to PSS. The comments offered by many of you were also insightful and gave me a glimpse about you as individuals, I liked the idea of being in your company.

I read the article written by Oliver, he is correct in many areas and somewhat off in others, or rather not off but missing some fundamentals about how these issues could be rectified. But as someone that runs a tight ship, I understand and empathise with his point of view. Indeed it is a major contributing factor to why I look at how many "little" issues can be eliminated in PSS prior to the general public having access to it.

You only get one chance at a first impression gentlemen. The question then is will you be part of the herd or will you be the game that brings back the thrill of MoO2?

Oddly enough, the very first thread I created here at PSS spoke of some of the same issues discussed by Oliver. Unlike him, I don't write professionally but at the end of the day common sense is still common sense.

 

I think this is a very good analysis of the issues that recent and current 4X games have. eXplorminate is the site I use for reviews and analysis, now that Space Sector no longer publishes those.

All That Glitters Is Not Gold