I was watching space game junkie play an old classic called Star Fleet II, and although it looks like Armored Commander II, in space, the depth of the game play caught my attention...command of capital ships, large strategic map, detailed planetary invasions involving different levels of inhabitant technology, detailed ship boarding actions, capture and use of slaves, torture and interrogation for intelligence, supply and logistics, etc. I then downloaded the manual from an abandonware site and was awestruck by some of the detail and complexity built into the title. There are other games like this out there from the early 90s and before...Rules of Engagement and it's companion game Breach, for instance.
I guess my question is why are games like this not made anymore? Where have these imaginative developers who could create so much with so little when the industry was in its infancy gone? I understand that profit is limited in titles like this these days, but certainly the profit was limited back then too. Something else must have changed. What is it? My greatest wish is for these types of games to be made again...the kind of games that take our dreams to stand on the bridge of a space battlecruiser, or to command legions of space infantry and let us play them out on the screen in supreme detail.
I remember playing Star Fleet and Star Fleet II.
I, honestly, have no idea.
I imagine the audience still is there. Things have changed with modern computers but still.
They were sacrificed on the altar of ever more realistic graphics. Which took all the dev money that used to be used to build interesting games. Just my opinion of course.
Because these games were made by people driven by passion while games are made today by people driven mostly by money?
I should check Star Fleet....where can you find it?
I'm hard pressed to believe it has to do with money and the overriding importance of flash and graphics. Once again, these games weren't necessarily money makers in their day. In the early 90s when these games were made, most homes didn't have a pc in them. So these catered to an elite or niche crowd. They were made in some cases by guys with PhDs who had a real interest, passion and a lot of knowledge about the subject matter and the hobby. There must be something else that has driven these guys underground.
From my experience the truly imaginative games get created in the first place because there is a gap, or a niche, that's not really been covered before then. Or at least, not been covered to the extent that the creator is satisfied with.
As time goes on, those niches and gaps become less and less. Like, why do Star Fleet II or something like it when Star Fleet II already exists? There could also be a perception that the barrier to entry in just 'doing it yourself' is a lot higher than it used to be. I can't actually speak for what it was like in the early days because I wasn't there (maaan), but perhaps it wasn't as difficult to try and self-teach the skills to make these low-tech games? I could be wrong on that.
Coming back to the Star Fleet 2 example, the only logical step from that is to make Star Fleet but with better graphics because what can you possibly do to make it better than it already is? (I've not played it myself, just holding it up as an example of a Damn Good Game(TM))
There is also the thing about passion projects that mean you rarely make a career out of it. Your PHD expert may have found the time to create that one game that's super cool, but that doesn't mean he/she wants to then make more games and there's no guarantee more people like them will even come along. Perhaps the 90's created a perfect storm of influences that inspired a select group of people, and such times are unlikely to come back.
The flash and graphics play into it I believe.
Money I believe is also a factor, not in the cost of the game per se but that game develops want to make money and to do that reliably you need to hit in the mainstream, not niche markets.
I mean what are the most popular games today. Shooters in all their shapes and forms.
I think your question could be placed in a broader basis. There is a major dearth of creativity in society nowadays. Look at movies. You might get 1 interesting nee concept movie out a year, mainstream is all sequels and comic book movies currently.
Look at music, it is all manufactured at the mainstream level.
Both industries have their niche and underground talent that truly creates new things but overall it's not going to be visible to the average person.
I am a computer game developer and I have an answer to your question. The price of error has become too high. If they don't pay for my work, then my first experience will be my last experience. Nobody needs new ugly buggy games. Even if these games have great new ideas.
Games from entertainment for the minority turned into a serious business with huge budgets. People with big money do not like to risk them and have not played games for a long time.
Most players need roughly the same games, mostly related to actions, not thoughts. Developers are also people, we have families, we need money.
Therefore, we are afraid to take risks.
Quote from: totemgam on May 26, 2020, 07:05:46 AM
I am a computer game developer and I have an answer to your question. The price of error has become too high. If they don't pay for my work, then my first experience will be my last experience. Nobody needs new ugly buggy games. Even if these games have great new ideas.
Games from entertainment for the minority turned into a serious business with huge budgets. People with big money do not like to risk them and have not played games for a long time.
Most players need roughly the same games, mostly related to actions, not thoughts. Developers are also people, we have families, we need money.
Therefore, we are afraid to take risks.
I'm sure that is some of it, but again, I highly doubt that is all of it.
Take Dr. Trevor Sorensen as an example, since we are talking about Star Fleet. Google him and look at his resume. The guy has several advanced degrees and was an aeronautical engineer for nasa. He created a few game development companies as side projects. It clearly wasn't his only source of income, nor his primary endeavor, but even with his full time career, with the help of a programmer and a designer, he created these fantastic games.
Everybody has a different situation or motivation. I just think several decades ago, the motivation was much less geared toward financial reward.
I think Jamus makes some good points about a lack of imagination across many industries. I hadn't thought of that. But I also think wargamer Joe makes a good point, which is closer to what I think I am getting at. Maybe it harder to self teach the necessary skills due to the nature of the technology, so on some level, perhaps, one almost needs to have programming as a career in order to get into it in the first place...
Many of my favourite PC games are from the 1990s. They were usually detailed, complex games with large manuals and you need to learn the game rules in order to play effectively. The home PC user base at the time was mainly comprised of early adopters who were technically aware.
These days, to achieve mass market success a game has to appeal to the widest possible audience, which includes making the game look as good as possible and making it easy to understand and play without the need to read a manual first. If your goal is to make money, then adding complexity or a steep learning curve is not a good idea. It would be more profitable to invest in better graphics.
I suspect that in the early days, a small group of developers could create and distribute a game. Now that games are a multi-billion dollar industry, the developers are no longer the primary decision makers. Marketing people and investors make different decisions regarding the production of a game. If money was no object and you let developers make the decisions, I suspect you would be more likely to see 1990s style games.
^you're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You fit into the mold of that late 80s early 90s developer. You've created a massively complex game that, just happens to have a very strong following. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it is free, you did not create it for profit. Game development is not your primary vocation.
I guess I'm just surprised that there aren't more Steve's and Trevor's our there in the world these days. Highly imaginative, resourceful individuals with a passion and love for the rich and deep complexity of the world's they have or can create.
There is no shortage of indie crap out there. Just scroll through the steam catalog. What is lacking is the imagination and drive that seemed to be somewhat more common in past decades. The decline of this kind of developer is gaming's greatest tragedy.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 26, 2020, 07:24:53 AM
^you're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You fit into the mold of that late 80s early 90s developer. You've created a massively complex game that, just happens to have a very strong following. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it is free, you did not create it for profit. Game development is not your primary vocation.
Profit was not the motive and I do have a full time job. Developing is a hobby and I am very keen for that to remain the case, which is why I don't charge for the game.
Given the lack of deep, complex games I decided to create my own and ended up sharing it with others. Creating a game I want to play is still the primary motivation.
In our games there is no and never has been profit. We are all amateurs and self-taught. We all (in Totem Games) have work: I am a historian, there is an accountant, and so on.
That is why I say that making a beautiful, high-quality game is expensive. The audience of our games is from 5 to 10 thousand people. It is very small to be a reliable financial base for large-scale creative experiments.
We can't give away our games for free because we don't know how to make beautiful ship 3d models. In the gaming industry, high wages and therefore the work of a professional 3d artist is expensive for us. In addition, not everyone, even for good money, can make a ship 3d model well.
There is another important point. The number of successful interesting gameplay elements is limited. In some genres, they are already almost all used.
You can't put creativity on the assembly line, especially if the creator is constantly hungry.
Let me remind you that over time, our brain gets used to pleasures and in order to maintain a level of satisfaction we need to throw more and more new emotions into the brain. Like with drugs.
Some genres of computer games have already become extinct as dinosaurs, but some have yet to.
My lifelong goal has been to bring Star Fleet I/II to a modern platform. I'm a programmer, but in no way a game designer. Still, I love those games. The very best 'Star Trek' games and one I would love to play again.
Quote from: WargamerJoe on May 26, 2020, 04:42:30 AM
.....There could also be a perception that the barrier to entry in just 'doing it yourself' is a lot higher than it used to be. I can't actually speak for what it was like in the early days because I wasn't there (maaan), but perhaps it wasn't as difficult to try and self-teach the skills to make these low-tech games? I could be wrong on that.
...
I was a software developer at the time. However, I was not a game developer, but I did dabble. All in all, IMHO the job of game developer was probably harder in those days. This is because there was no concept of a "game engine" at the time. You had to pretty much program everything from scratch. If you wanted to support a mouse, you had to often build your own routines for mouse behavior. UI had to be hand crafted. Need a database function? build it yourself. Then their was the nightmare of lack of standardization on the PC side. Sound cards and video cards often needed custom tailored interfaces. If you needed to optimize your game, you had to dabble in assembly language, or even machine code..not for the faint of heart. You also did not have good ways to get patches to your customers, so none of this "Early Access" stuff. The game had to substantially work by the time you put it in a box.
I think because of the proliferation of very good, inexpensive and easy to learn game engines. things are much easier now.
^Very interesting...certainly adds to the mystery.
This has me thinking. Is there a market for taking old games and renovating them to today's UI and graphics standards whilst maintaining the imaginative gameplay they were originally created as?
Kind of like 'Flip this house' but instead 'Flip this game'.
^Definitely...like the Age of Empires series "Definitive Editions" as well as the Warcraft and Resident Evil series, just to name a few.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 26, 2020, 07:24:53 AMThere is no shortage of indie crap out there.
Could be that many gems get lost in the weeds.
Quote from: smittyohio on May 26, 2020, 11:32:26 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 26, 2020, 07:24:53 AMThere is no shortage of indie crap out there.
Could be that many gems get lost in the weeds.
I get down and dirty into those weeds just about every day. Its rare that a gem gets missed, but I suppose anything is possible. I think if the next great Star Fleet II was out there, I would know about it.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on May 26, 2020, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: WargamerJoe on May 26, 2020, 04:42:30 AM
.....There could also be a perception that the barrier to entry in just 'doing it yourself' is a lot higher than it used to be. I can't actually speak for what it was like in the early days because I wasn't there (maaan), but perhaps it wasn't as difficult to try and self-teach the skills to make these low-tech games? I could be wrong on that.
...
I was a software developer at the time. However, I was not a game developer, but I did dabble. All in all, IMHO the job of game developer was probably harder in those days. This is because there was no concept of a "game engine" at the time. You had to pretty much program everything from scratch. If you wanted to support a mouse, you had to often build your own routines for mouse behavior. UI had to be hand crafted. Need a database function? build it yourself. Then their was the nightmare of lack of standardization on the PC side. Sound cards and video cards often needed custom tailored interfaces. If you needed to optimize your game, you had to dabble in assembly language, or even machine code..not for the faint of heart. You also did not have good ways to get patches to your customers, so none of this "Early Access" stuff. The game had to substantially work by the time you put it in a box.
I think because of the proliferation of very good, inexpensive and easy to learn game engines. things are much easier now.
Yes, completely agree. In the 1990s I was a C++ developer on 16 bit Windows 3.1. That was far more low level and easier to screw up than my current preference of C# on Windows 10. Programming these days has a lot less overhead, allowing you to concentrate on design.
Dare I post this.. :-[...I'm on the other side of this issue. GOG excited me when it came out but I haven't bought anything there is awhile. Nostalgia, to me, proved to be a huge disappointment. The old games were let downs and can't hold a candle to the newer games we have now. For example I'll take Age of Empires III and Xenonauts over the original Master of Magic and Xcom and day. Again, this is just my experience. I try not to confuse imaginative with complexity...they are two different things. One of the deepest, layered, complex games I've played in years is the recent Field of Glory: Empires with its introduction of decadence and legacy, and porting of battles to Field of Glory 2 are quite novel in how they impact the gameplay. Anyway, I think imagination is still there, but it's hidden within the glut of new releases that dwarf the old days in numbers.
Quote from: Rayfer on May 26, 2020, 01:21:23 PM
Dare I post this.. :-[...I'm on the other side of this issue. GOG excited me when it came out but I haven't bought anything there is awhile. Nostalgia, to me, proved to be a huge disappointment. The old games were let downs and can't hold a candle to the newer games we have now. For example I'll take Age of Empires III and Xenonauts over the original Master of Magic and Xcom and day. Again, this is just my experience. I try not to confuse imaginative with complexity...they are two different things. One of the deepest, layered, complex games I've played in years is the recent Field of Glory: Empires with its introduction of decadence and legacy, and porting of battles to Field of Glory 2 are quite novel in how they impact the gameplay. Anyway, I think imagination is still there, but it's hidden within the glut of new releases that dwarf the old days in numbers.
I know what you mean about the GoG phenomenon and the let down of revisiting older games that just have not held up over time. However, that is not really what I'm talking about. While I agree that revisiting older games can often times be disappointing, I'm confounded by why games today, for the most part, are not made with the same love, attention to detail and depth, that seems to have been more common place in the 80s and 90s. Quite frankly, I am just as let down by new releases these days, as I am by revisiting older titles released on GoG.
Thanks for starting this thread Jarhead. I'm enjoying some of the, fresh to me, insight although it can be a bit depressing. Keeping my fingers crossed that Microprose can return to their days of glory.
Quote from: W8taminute on May 26, 2020, 10:56:44 AM
This has me thinking. Is there a market for taking old games and renovating them to today's UI and graphics standards whilst maintaining the imaginative gameplay they were originally created as?
Kind of like 'Flip this house' but instead 'Flip this game'.
Ubisoft ("Anno" (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/05/26/ubisoft-are-revamping-four-vintage-anno-games/) series) and 2K ("Mafia" (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/05/19/mafia-definitive-edition-remake-officially-announced-for-august/)) think so.
It's the same in all entertainment industries. The rinse repeat formula that is driven by profit and deadlines by the big kahunas. They become black holes sucking in all the "talent" attracting them with financial stability (the golden handcuffs) and some ideas just can't seem to take off without their support. I think that nowadays people also have a higher standard of what they consider gems and what they can overlook and a jack of all trades is a master of none so they might just hit the mark on 1 or 2 of your set stipulations of what a gem is. Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: totemgam on May 26, 2020, 09:37:15 AM
There is another important point. The number of successful interesting gameplay elements is limited. In some genres, they are already almost all used.
I think this is an pertinent factor. In the infancy of PC games, designers could branch off in any direction, limited only by the available technology, but as they did so, they "used up" the innovations. Perhaps an analogy could be that there are no great explorers about these days - there are a decreasing amount of places to discover on the planet.
Also, I think the "wow" factor we experienced when we first came across a type of PC game is a stronger emotion than when we play the next iteration of the genre. For example, I've often seen the opinion that CMx1 games are better than CMx2. Objectively, it is hard to see how that could be true - the latter has a better UI, controls, graphics, flexibility of units, etc. Yet I think that players were blown away by CMx1, because it offered something so completely new and so that experience formed a strong positive memory. Playing CMx2 offers the same (arguably improved) gaming experience, yet because it is not so novel, the emotional impact is not so positive. Hence it is regarded not so favourably.
And another thing (while I'm waffling on with cod-psychology), when you are forced to use your imagination in experiencing something it creates stronger memories. Games with less realistic graphics and sounds and so on induce the player to use his or her imagination more than some of flashier games, so they tend to stick in the memory better. In my case I'd cite CO2. It's a game where square counters move over a contour map and there are only very rudimentary visual and sound effects. This means that I tend to imagine what is happening to the pixeltruppen as the counters move and their status changes, rather than have it graphically laid out before me. So, I think I enjoy and remember CO2 battles more because of its lack of graphical flashiness than despite it.
Therefore I think it could be the case that older games were not necessarily better or more innovative than today's, but that, for various reasons, we remember them that way.
Nostalgia is a really strong emotion.
Quote from: Gusington on May 26, 2020, 05:05:23 PM
Nostalgia is a really strong emotion.
Hmmm..I wasted a lot of words, didn't I?
Quotewhen you are forced to use your imagination in experiencing something it creates stronger memories
I totally agree with this, some of my best memories are games like North Atlantic '86, War in the South Pacific, Zork, games with crappy to no graphics. Also, I was 40ish years younger and could remember things.
I aspire to be a writer, Father :)
I say this totally 'Tongue in cheek'. O:-)
Many a game now being released is Early Access. The reason for doing this is nearly always that a developer wants player input so as to make the best game possible to a players liking.
On that basis there are a great deal of games now (or soon to be) available that are just about what players want, surely? :DD
ps :One (IMO) very good example where EA works is with Armoured Commander 2 & there definitely are others, but generally...What a cop out!!
I feel like the RTS community has suffered the most.
The current state is just bad. Uninspired, really.
Nothing grabs you like the innovation of systems like Supreme Commander, or aspects of asymmetric warfare like Command and Conquer Generals.
It seems like many RTS these days only have one faction. Wtf is that about?
When I started reading this thread it made me think of a video I watched a long time ago about why Morrowind is the best game in the Elder Scrolls series. I may have posted this previously in a different thread; I can't remember now.
Regardless, it's a pretty long video so it's maybe best enjoyed with a nice glass of wine in the evening. The author's thesis is that Morrowind is the best because of the depth and creativity that underlies the gameplay, and that remaking it in a new engine would make it look prettier, but would detract from the gameplay that made Morrowind special.
Anyway, this is what I thought of; I just watched it again and I think it speaks to many of the thoughts thus far expressed.
Along the same lines, I love this video.
The author's thesis is that the problems with the series are: games are made for consoles as well as PCs, and that the games have been streamlined and simplified to appeal to casual gamers.
I also simply love this guy's voice and presentation.
Quote from: jamus34 on May 26, 2020, 06:04:33 AM
The flash and graphics play into it I believe.
Money I believe is also a factor, not in the cost of the game per se but that game develops want to make money and to do that reliably you need to hit in the mainstream, not niche markets.
I mean what are the most popular games today. Shooters in all their shapes and forms.
I think your question could be placed in a broader basis. There is a major dearth of creativity in society nowadays. Look at movies. You might get 1 interesting nee concept movie out a year, mainstream is all sequels and comic book movies currently.
Look at music, it is all manufactured at the mainstream level.
Both industries have their niche and underground talent that truly creates new things but overall it's not going to be visible to the average person.
I think this answers much of the question. Not to get all doom and gloom, but the reality is that whenever you have small isolated populations evolution/innovation happens at a fast rate, whereas when you have large populations in direct contact evolution/innovation slows. The internet has created an interconnected world where one programmers fart in Silicon Valley can be criticized and ridiculed by the masses in any number of locations. Its the phenomenon known as "Outrage Culture." Someone somewhere will take offense to whatever it is that is happening, context or no, and gather a merry band of angry folk who will make a big stink about it. Even outside the realm of outrage, two programmers 8,000 miles apart interacting in the same space online about the same things kills innovation and diversity.
I don't think the drive for money has "corrupted" the gaming industry, or movies, or music, or anything. After all, these things have always existed solely to create profit. The difference is, nowadays innovation is dead because the mass communal nature of the internet is slowly killing it. You see it in a lot of places. Entertainment industries generally are garbage nowadays, politics have become polarized echo chambers, as has much of the scientific community. In fact, most of life has become a polarized echo chamber, where every tiny thing is blown into a national and international controversy. Hell, even the Covid situation is indicative. The internet allows everyone to share in mutual terror and panic, which only amplifies it. Unfortunately, as cyberspace continues to proliferate and become more integrated into everyone's lives, this trend is only likely to increase.
That said, I'm no doomsday advocate, and consistently roll my eyes at those who are. I couldn't hope to propose a solution to what I've stated above, but I don't think it'll be the end of us all or anything crazy like that. There are a handful examples that buck the trend. The HBO show Chernobyl was fantastic, there is some decent new music being made (Tool and earlier this decade Alice in Chains are personal picks for me), and in the gaming sphere we do have some current gems (Combat Mission, Command: Modern Operations, Steel Beasts, and more main stream games like Red Dead Redemption 2 just to name a few) and some upcoming gems, such as Sea Power, Task Force Admiral, and more. There is still great stuff on the horizon, its just that now you have a lot more junk you have to sift through, and thanks to the internet its constantly being shoved in your face.
A certain feature creep squeezes in to game series too. I love the first Splinter Cell. It had a simplicity and ease of control. Later titles added more and more features and buttons and combos. I still think the first one is the best even with its simple graphics.
Quote from: Father Ted on May 26, 2020, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: Gusington on May 26, 2020, 05:05:23 PM
Nostalgia is a really strong emotion.
Hmmm..I wasted a lot of words, didn't I?
To be fair, I wasn't really trying to write about nostalgia - that wasn't what endeared those games to us back in the day.
But most of us are too old to remember what it really was!
Part of the problem, I think, is the modern DLC business model.
First, while it is perhaps unfair to say that developers routinely strip their initial releases of features that "should" be there, it is undeniable that companies increasingly adopt development plans that call for game features to be added incrementally. A new game on initial release today is almost always less than the designer expects it to be tomorrow, less even than the tomorrow after that.
Second, and perhaps worse, the DLC model dictates that new features will be added. DLC's become an end in themselves; coherence is secondary.
So we now have games that are in a constant state of flux, with changes too often made simply for the sake of having something new to sell. What begins as a quaint, spartan cottage slowly morphs into a McMansion monstrosity full of questionable "bonus rooms."
Paradox games, in other words.
Some Slitherine titles too.
Quote from: Queeg on May 27, 2020, 02:59:38 PM
Part of the problem, I think, is the modern DLC business model.
First, while it is perhaps unfair to say that developers routinely strip their initial releases of features that "should" be there, it is undeniable that companies increasingly adopt development plans that call for game features to be added incrementally. A new game on initial release today is almost always less than the designer expects it to be tomorrow, less even than the tomorrow after that.
Second, and perhaps worse, the DLC model dictates that new features will be added. DLC's become an end in themselves; coherence is secondary.
So we now have games that are in a constant state of flux, with changes too often made simply for the sake of having something new to sell. What begins as a quaint, spartan cottage slowly morphs into a McMansion monstrosity full of questionable "bonus rooms."
Paradox games, in other words.
This is a big reason why I just can't seem to get too excited anymore about new games. In the old days you got it all the content there was ever going to be made for a game in one package. The replayability of a lot of those games due to being full of every feature and game content was immense. That is one of the reasons why I revisit a lot of my older games because they are 'complete' right out of the box.
Today you buy a game and it will hold your interest for about 5 minutes until you realize not everything is fully fleshed out. What they give you out of the box is a shell of a game but they hope you will like it enough to purchase the DLCs which really should have been in the base game. That is one of the reasons why I won't buy another Paradox game ever again. I don't like the Civilization series anymore either because the shell base game is boring and the DLC that come out have features/content that should have been in the base game from the start.
The young kids who don't have a game history and don't know any better love these seemingly brilliant games and have been conditioned to buy all of the DLCs. As a cynical old man who has seen a lot in the game world I'm not easily fooled.
First, why can't I buy Star Fleet 1 or 2 that works on a modern machine? Probably confused copyright or too high a price on old copyright - but I still can't buy it. Missed it the first time due to work. Please help me someone - I would like to play these and I'm not graphics picky.
Second, the barriers to entry for games are lower now than they ever have been. With the development tools out there and the ability to reach market without fighting for limited physical shelf space - we just have more product available and more things can reach market. Tools are out there if you are not overly concerned with production values. Dominions anyone?
Third, I'm guessing that if you looked at the total number of releases during your favorite nostalgia period - you will find that a huge proportion was crap. When a market is developed - there is more experimentation on what will and won't work. Once the market is understood you get more things that refine or try to find a smaller niche. This is described as the "product life cycle" in marketing and has generally held across markets as a broad descriptive tool. The theory has been around since the 1970s. We remember the "survivors" of a market that were excellent - and forget the crap. Take a 10 year period of your favorite books, movies, games. Look at the total number of releases versus what you thought was wonderful. Most was crap as you look back in time.
Last, nostalgia has a grip on consumers. You develop tastes for different things at different stages of your life. You remember "golden ages" when things were new to you and exciting - when that may or may not be the case for the industry itself. Classic example is music. Most people develop their music tastes when they were young/dating and they stay locked in that time period.
Jarhead/others - I'm not saying that your feelings are not real. But I'm also not convinced that your feelings are not clouded by nostalgia or by what you get when a market develops normally (PC games here).
But hey, these are just my thoughts tempered by studying markets for decades.
Now can someone find me those two games without my stealing them?
Quote from: Gusington on May 26, 2020, 06:15:23 PM
I aspire to be a writer, Father :)
Good question. It's quite noticable; lots of games, not much imagination. Well, I'm fixing it right away. First I ran some machine learning on the
Spanish Armada data. With a little fiddling, I could get a pretty coherent English ship doctrine resolved: Three ancient monsters, some little ships, and the 10-15 killer galleons of the period prior to 1588 and the super-monster killers after the earlier killer types were proven.
For the Spanish Fleet -- so far not well resolved and I'm going to work on a different scenario in the WAW engine ( the revolt of Megabyzius in 458 BCE which probably stimulated the letter that Ezra (in the Book of Esra) brought to Jerusalem in the Seventh year of King Artaxerxes).
Basically, developers need to develop their imaginations by digging way way way down deep into real histories.
Quote from: airboy on May 28, 2020, 11:01:29 AM
First, why can't I buy Star Fleet 1 or 2 that works on a modern machine? Probably confused copyright or too high a price on old copyright - but I still can't buy it. Missed it the first time due to work. Please help me someone - I would like to play these and I'm not graphics picky.
You won't be stealing them. They are available for free with the permission of the developer. It is my understanding that he has even offered suggestions on how to run them best through dosbox.
They are available here: https://www.myabandonware.com/ (https://www.myabandonware.com/) and there is some indication that Dr. Sorensen is aware that the games are distributed from this site.
It is a legit site. If the IP is owned, they will not offer the game for free. If you want to play these games, this is where you are going to have to get them and you will have to run them through dosbox. Star Fleet I and II and Star Legion all run fine on my Windows 10 rig.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 28, 2020, 11:15:57 AM
Quote from: airboy on May 28, 2020, 11:01:29 AM
First, why can't I buy Star Fleet 1 or 2 that works on a modern machine? Probably confused copyright or too high a price on old copyright - but I still can't buy it. Missed it the first time due to work. Please help me someone - I would like to play these and I'm not graphics picky.
You won't be stealing them. They are available for free with the permission of the developer. It is my understanding that he has even offered suggestions on how to run them best through dosbox.
They are available here: https://www.myabandonware.com/ (https://www.myabandonware.com/) and there is some indication that Dr. Sorensen is aware that the games are distributed from this site.
It is a legit site. If the IP is owned, they will not offer the game for free. If you want to play these games, this is where you are going to have to get them and you will have to run them through dosbox. Star Fleet I and II and Star Legion all run fine on my Windows 10 rig.
Thanks! You are the best!
Man alive is that site a wormhole.
Great thread!
I have been thinking about why many new games don't hold my interest for long. I keep coming back to my feeling of 'having seen it all'. There are only a handful games whic truely offer something new and interesting and, ironically so, are mostly obscure indie titles.
Supporting this discussion I feel those indie devs operate much like pretty much all devs back in the days of Star Fleet 2. So the argument made about money and deadlines killing creativity might be very apt.
I also feel there is far too little 'fun' in todays games; great graphics, believable worlds all made sure to feel alive and with lots of places to explore (but is it really exploring?). But the actual gameplay is rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat for dozens of hours...
(Destiny, Assassins's Creed, etc)
What happened to the funfactor?
Its pushed aside by the call for realism, which often gets confused with believability. But imo a believable gameworld doesnt have to be realistic. It can contain very gamey aspects to make the game more fun! I'd like to see more of that.
I am from the Cmdr Keen generation. Late 80's and 90's were my glory gaming days, so my perception is coloured by those experiences.
Anyway, fittingly on topic, I have decided I am going to make a digital pinball cabinet with parts I have laying around after my gaming rig upgrade.
It'll run on Win10 on a i5 4670K, 16GB RAM, Geforce 1050ti, Asus Z87-A motherboard, TP-Link AC1300 dual band wireless card for connectivity and an encoder to translate the arcade buttons into USB controller signals.
The cabinet parts will be arriving shortly and I'll make a thread with photo's for the project.
That'll bring some old school funfactor and competition back to our home, I expect. :D