Time for my "coming out"...

[Bishop AlMighty]

Looks like the town screen ain't even full screen in the game: http://www.drachenwald.net/gamescom/097.JPG

C'mon Marzhin, what have you been doing there?!

He said that it will be town window

- Town screen: there is still a town screen, or more accurately, a town window.

And I must say that I don't like this idea, but I will wait some more.

[ThunderTitan]

Yeah, but i was expecting a bigger window... i mean i have the forum opened in a window, and it takes up my whole screen...

I love these people who are saying that this game is Heroes stream-lined for the masses! Why? Because the game only has four resources? Please. First of all there's more to a game than sheer quantity of resources (Disciples II was a superb game and it only had five resources, being gold and the different types of mana).

Oh look, he thinks Disciples 2 was more complex then H3... how cute.

Secondly we have no idea how Ubisoft is going to implement the new system of "competition" for the one rare resource. There's no guarantee that there will be as many "crystal" mines in Heroes VI as there are "rare" resource mines in Heroes V. This new system where one has to capture the castle to get the resources will likely factor into this equation as well.

And then he thinks that having 1 mine in the middle for everyone to fight over constantly is the epitome of a strategy game...

I know complexity and competitive start out with the same letter, but they're not the same thing...

[karinnarre]

there's more to a game than sheer quantity of resources (Disciples II was a superb game and it only had five resources

Oh look, he thinks Disciples 2 was more complex then H3... how cute.

Oh look, he thinks he can read and understand another post, but actually makes a very poor job at it.

Dude said D2 was a game he liked, and had only five resources - proof that to some players, a game with less resources than our previous Heroes titles can still be fun and entertaining.

And then there's what you made of it ...


edit: I apologize in advance for the manner of my reply, but twisting words in such a manner that it strips the original (clear, correct and with no comparison whatsoever between the depth of strategy encountered in H3 vs D2 - based solely on the number of resources put at the disposal of each player) post of its meaning and turns it into what he "wants" to understand by making a false accusation out of thin air ... bugs me.

[ThunderTitan]

there's more to a game than sheer quantity of resources (Disciples II was a superb game and it only had five resources

Oh look, he thinks Disciples 2 was more complex then H3... how cute.

Oh look, he thinks he can read and understand another post, but actually makes a very poor job at it.

Dude said D2 was a game he liked, and had only five resources - proof that to some players, a game with less resources than our previous Heroes titles can still be fun and entertaining.

And then there's what you made of it ...


edit: I apologize in advance for the manner of my reply, but twisting words in such a manner that it strips the original (clear, correct and with no comparison whatsoever between the depth of strategy encountered in H3 vs D2 - based solely on the number of resources put at the disposal of each player) post of its meaning and turns it into what he "wants" to understand by making a false accusation out of thin air ... bugs me.

Spin the bottle is also a fun game, that doesn't mean i can use it in a post trying to make a point about how less resources are better, or just as good.

It's like saying that they're not simplifying chess by making all pieces be the same because checkers is fun too...



EDIT: and don't apologize... for me that like when the sharks smell blood...

[karinnarre]

Maybe it's meant to be more competitive, maybe it's just making the game easier so more "simple" gamers can enjoy it.

I dunno. However, any idea regarding a way in which they could implement this and make the game better would only help i reckon.

[ThunderTitan]

But they don't want to make the game better, they want to make it sell better... big difference.

[karinnarre]

Well, who doesn't want their product to sell better?

Ideally they want both.

[ThunderTitan]

Well, who doesn't want their product to sell better?

Artists... if it sales good before they die it means they failed at making art.

And ideally the though of implementing a feature because it will help sales should never cross a developers mind...

[karinnarre]

That's the first thing that crosses their minds.

It's not a bad thing, good games and good sales can coexist just fine.

For example :(quite a lot of studies and books have been written over the subject)
What's your game's target audience? - the hardcore gamer, the casual gamer ?!

You want a guys game, girls game, both guys and girls, family games ...

For what type of mentality - conqueror, merchant, wanderer ... [you want your game to be played by everyone and each player to find something fun to do, no matter what their expectations are? or do you want to make a great game for only a small part of the market]
>> from what I recall .. the conqueror wants to win, merchant wants to improve himself, wanderer wants to see everything .. and there were more types that escape right now ...

Also there was a measurement in dimensions for each game:
- pacman: 2D
- king of fighters: 3D
- quake1: 4D
- 3d shooter in which you can lean over corners, etc... : 4-5-6D
etc etc ..
(these are not the exact numbers, I'm sure I'm way off, but the idea stand: the more actions and buttons you have to perform and use, the more dimensions your game will have. the more complex, the less players will fully understand and enjoy it.)

the list of questions goes on.

At the end .. what sells most likely will differ from what one originally envisioned as his perfect project - and he either adapts, or finances the project himself from his pockets (funny fact: no matter the game, at the end some players will curse him from making bad decisions they don't agree with).

So if he's sitting on oil .. he might finance his ideal game. Companies don't have the luxury of acting like starving artists for the sake of a good title, unfortunately.

And you can see this all around you. Nintendo made a lot of money with Super Mario back in the day, because it gradually introduced new challenges and abilities, and the gameflow was easily understood by the players. Blizzard adopted the same style: strategies give you one new unit per mission, WoW gives you 2-3 new spells per few levels, letting you play with them for a while before giving you new ones...
Also they tried to make a game for everyone:
hardcore? > raids.
not so much time? > heroic achievements.
want to keep improving yourself with limited time? > arenas
a few hours every 3-4 days? > lousy profession epics but still enough to feel rewarded for playing.

What sells is important for a company that can lose everything with a few unlucky releases (see Flagship: form, work on a big project/Hellgate, fail, close down studio).

I'd like to see a developer not taking into consideration these points

And finally .. related to Heroes: I hope they can make a product that sells AND meets our expectations at the same time.

[Pitsu]

And ideally the though of implementing a feature because it will help sales should never cross a developers mind...

Perfect example is that Ubi bought M&M (game not candies) because they had a great idea how to continue with the story.... As far as i remember, they actually did a nice move by trying to get original NWC people into the project, but with most no agreement was reached. Thus they had to figure by themselves what to do with the franchise. Budget and deadline were set by CEO, and appointed developers just had to come up with something. Hard to expect that there instantly was a high quality ideas for improving the game. They are pretty much lucky if they have an idea which actually increases the sales. But it is danger that they will change with no clear vision and end up with a product that meets budget and deadline and sells mainly because of name not gameplay.

oh, are we getting off-topic?
*thinks whether he is ready to announce his coming out from closet. *
on the other hand, it is nice to stay in closet.

[ThunderTitan]

The only thing they should think of is how to make the game good, and being accessible is part of that, but that doesn't have to mean dumbed down to the lower common denominator.

That's the first thing that crosses their minds.

It's not a bad thing, good games and good sales can coexist just fine.

Not when they think like that it doesn't... here's proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNrQLDrdvLw

But no, it's better if Raynor basically ignores Tychus being booby-trapped and we're just spoon-fed units instead of being allowed to make our own choices. And it's even better that they scrapped the other campaigns just to give us a watered down version of something they had implemented 3 years before release...

strategies give you one new unit per mission,

See what i mean about bad decisions?! Especially in a game with SP tutorial maps. GAH!!!!

a few hours every 3-4 days? > lousy profession epics but still enough to feel rewarded for playing.

One should feel rewarded by the actual act of playing, not by getting some shiny new armour or achievement...

[karinnarre]

Raynor basically ignores Tychus being booby-trapped and we're just spoon-fed units instead of being allowed to make our own choices.

I don't follow. What do you mean by own choices?

One should feel rewarded by the actual act of playing, not by getting some shiny new armour or achievement...

See, that's your point of view - some share it, some don't. As I mentioned in the previous post, people differ, and their reasons for playing are not the same as yours or mine: some want just to explore and enjoy the features, some want self improvement, some want rewards ...

A shiny item or an achievement both mean he did something good and got a reward for that, and this encourages a lot of people to keep playing and enjoying the game - because they invest time, and receive some form of appreciation in return.
Two identical games - one with achievements that might even push them to improve their skill, and one without: guess which one will be played by more? and why?

The only thing they should think of is how to make the game good, and being accessible is part of that, but that doesn't have to mean dumbed down to the lower common denominator.

I agree with you .. but sadly it's not only a gaming industry problem we're facing. All around us things are getting more user-friendly, more easy to use, and generally worse than their previous versions - who although harder to operate, did a better job.

You hardly see cars that don't break down for 10-15years now, but they're a lot easier to handle (gps, they help you park, etc...)
I have a lot of examples .. look anywhere around after all.
Things are tailor made so more and more can use and benefit from them (and of course buy them) - getting out a jewel of a product that only a handful of people will buy enjoy is becoming a rarity.

If you can find a solution to a basic capitalist issue ... I won't be the only one glad to hear it.

[klaymen]

Two identical games - one with achievements that might even push them to improve their skill, and one without: guess which one will be played by more? and why?

The term "achievement whore" exists for a reason.

[karinnarre]

The term "achievement whore" exists for a reason.

What's that have to do with anything?
I'm sure not all players are achievement whores.

Why they're liked, I explained above.
That a handful choose to go to the extreme says nothing as you have fanatics in every domain, and that's not our concern.

[Nelgirith]

Two identical games - one with achievements that might even push them to improve their skill, and one without: guess which one will be played by more? and why?

The term "achievement whore" exists for a reason.

Most of the time, those achievements can be obtain by playing perfectly which is pretty much what most players are aiming at, so getting a pat in the back when you actually manage to do it ain't such a bad thing. I guess that's also what most players like in an achievement + reward system.

Getting back to a Starcraft 2-analogy : Finishing the campaign in brutal difficulty sure is a feat, but getting to brag around with your Kerrigan avatar feels somewhat self-rewarding

Is it needed ? probably not. Is it what players want ? most likely yes. People who are hunting achievements will play again and again and again until they get their achievement. No matter whether they play 100 times the same map, apply 100 times the same strat - that's a blessing for game designers who don't have to care about the replayability factor of their game ... achievements are doing the job just fine.

[konfeta]

Has HoMM finally reached that wondrous era? Where the pristine elite look down upon the filthy casuals for encroaching their sacred territory? Where the noble hipsters turn their furious gaze upon the world, grasping the bewildered game developers with their long, corpselike, marble white fingers, hissing... "My preciousss.... do it for the artssss.... do it for ussssss....."


My, this franchise might actually become popular and grow into something significant in the coming years!

[ThunderTitan]

Raynor basically ignores Tychus being booby-trapped and we're just spoon-fed units instead of being allowed to make our own choices.

I don't follow. What do you mean by own choices?

Did you watch that video?!

See, that's your point of view - some share it, some don't. As I mentioned in the previous post, people differ, and their reasons for playing are not the same as yours or mine: some want just to explore and enjoy the features, some want self improvement, some want rewards ...

A shiny item or an achievement both mean he did something good and got a reward for that, and this encourages a lot of people to keep playing and enjoying the game - because they invest time, and receive some form of appreciation in return.

There's a word for those people: IDIOTS!!!

See, when you're playing for the reward it doesn't actually matter what the game is like, which is why almost 12 million people spend countless hours doing the same fetch quest over and over so they can get better loot to be able to do something that might require some level of thinking. Look over the internet and see how many WoW-heads are saying that the game gets better once you're high level...

Enjoy your skinner box: http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5- ... icted.html

Two identical games - one with achievements that might even push them to improve their skill, and one without: guess which one will be played by more? and why?

Counter-Strike is still played more then CoD, even if most servers are not legit.

If you can find a solution to a basic capitalist issue ... I won't be the only one glad to hear it.

I don't need a solution because the system is self correcting... just look at the current crisis... i just think it would be nice for games to get better again without a crash...

[karinnarre]

Did you watch that video?!

I don't ask just for the sake of it.
You can choose whether you want to answer me or not.

There's a word for those people: IDIOTS!!!

See, when you're playing for the reward it doesn't actually matter what the game is like

First, enjoying more feedback from the game if you perform well doesn't qualify you as an idiot.

(Ex: if I'm payed to deliver a cargo from town A to town D, and there's a huge roadblock on town C, but I manage to avoid it and deliver in time, we check in on the phone about the current situation and my employer throws me an extra beer when I return for avoiding the roadblock - does it make me an idiot that I'm glad for the positive feedback during the delivery?
It's not a decisive matter when I choose to do the delivery - if the feedback's there or not - but if I can choose, I'd go for the feedback one)

Please explain to me the way you see this.


Second, any action you do is for some kind of reward. You play a game to win, you go to a concert to see a band you like perform live, you read a book to learn something new, etc... I doubt you choose to do something completely useless; if I tell you to go water the trees in the forest - a thing you dislike - but there's a storm coming in half an hour, I reckon you'd pass because they'd get water regardless of whether you tend to them or not...

There's a reward to be gained from everything in one form or another ... how are we not playing games for rewards ?!

Counter-Strike is still played more then CoD, even if most servers are not legit.

The sky is blue. The girl next door to me is fat. I could use a cup of coffee ....
All true, but irrelevant to the subject.
Although I admit my knowledge of FPSs is not great, I remember CoD and CS not being identical.

i just think it would be nice for games to get better again without a crash...

Is that melancholy speaking or did it all get worse at some point?

My, this franchise might actually become popular and grow into something significant in the coming years!

That would be an interesting thing to see. I can only hope!

[ThunderTitan]

I don't ask just for the sake of it.
You can choose whether you want to answer me or not.

I was just giving you a chance to prove you can figure it out yourself...

In the video you can choose units outside of missions, so if you want to do the map without the recommended unit you could in that video. Also looks like you could unlock planets and travel to them, which was nice.

Probably should have posted part 1 too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCdT4CHqVBg

First, enjoying more feedback from the game if you perform well doesn't qualify you as an idiot.

(Ex: if I'm payed to deliver a cargo from town A to town D, and there's a huge roadblock on town C, but I manage to avoid it and deliver in time, we check in on the phone about the current situation and my employer throws me an extra beer when I return for avoiding the roadblock - does it make me an idiot that I'm glad for the positive feedback during the delivery?)

Please explain to me the way you see this.

Stats where around before achievements, and actually the info/feedback you get from game has decreased overall since the 90's. Achievements are there for nothing but bragging rights... even the good ones that reward playing the game in some new way (those that are simply about getting X kills are pointless, and would be better as simple stats cataloguing overall kills).

Second, any action you do is for some kind of reward. You play a game to win, you go to a concert to see a band you like perform live, you read a book to learn something new, etc... I doubt you choose to do something completely useless; if I tell you to go water the trees in the forest - a thing you dislike - but there's a storm coming in half an hour, I reckon you'd pass because they'd get water regardless of whether you tend to them or not...

There's a reward to be gained from everything in one form or another ... how are we not playing games for rewards ?!

The reward is playing the game, because as entertainment they're supposed to be fun to do, not something i dislike but do because i want to have nice trees in my forest (i'm assuming that's why i'm watering the tree).

Although I admit my knowledge of FPSs is not great, I remember CoD and CS not being identical.

They're close enough... actually nearly every FPS nowadays is a CS copy (although i guess Delta Force did it first).

Is that melancholy speaking or did it all get worse at some point?

The late 90's where pretty good imo... it's been publisher consolidation, streamlining for the masses downhill ever since... like i mentioned somewhere, i know plenty of people that barely finished high school that where into H3... nowadays college students are too busy playing Halo and CoD.

EDIT: Another thing nice about the 90's was that when i was screaming about a game being dumbed down someone could always counter-post about some game getting better, or a new game that's complex that did well (for sale numbers at the time)... now it's not that easy to do that.

My, this franchise might actually become popular and grow into something significant in the coming years!

Yes, i'm sure millions of people will throw away their controllers and/or stop playing WoW so they can get some TBS action.

Face it, as a genre TBS will never sell enough to become "significant" again in the current market, but if they do it right they can get back the market they lost. Just look at Stardock, they know their game aren't gonna sell 10 mil... they still pour everything into them. Frankly that's what i want from this game, and it's a more realistic expectation.

[karinnarre]

The reply would be even bigger.
I enjoy talking to Thunder a lot; the angle from which we see this industry might be different from mine, but we're both looking at the same thing.

I read this

Enjoy your skinner box: http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5- ... icted.html

and every link I could find related to it. Right now I'm at

http://www.nickyee.com/hub/addiction/home.html
[Ariadne - Understanding MMORPG addiction] and
http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ARUreport01.htm
[Pleasure Systems in the brain] - a study about motivation and reward.

I recommend his link, as it's a rewarding read.



However, we're way off-topic. We'll PM from now on.
The Heroes6 topic is hardly involved anymore in our discussion.