 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
okblacke
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's only eye candy though. |
"Only eye candy". As someone who's been playing since the days of "ADVENT" and who stuck with Infocom-type games while Sierra was pumping out graphical adventures, I have to say that I've grown to respect "only eye candy" in recent years.
Atmosphere is a big part of a game. "Eye candy" is part of that. "Homeworld" has a lot of "eye candy", but it simpley would not be as immersive if it were played out on a flat map like Civ games always have been.
Civ 3 is marvellously streamlined for gameplay, no question. Yet a lot of the little touches--riot screens, wonder movies, full screen diplomatic interactions--added something to the immersion. (Not that they should add these things back in, necessarily, but they didn't really compensate in a "You Are There" kind of way.)
As a result, Civ-like games seem to end up being boiled down into a kind of chess or even checkers game, where we're thinking of moving pieces around rather than building a vibrant empire.
A real stroke of genius would be to add immersive elements in without interrupting the game flow. GalCiv, which is particularly dinky in its graphic presentation, forces you to make ethical choices throughout the game--which aid immersion a bit. The planetary council also has a more "real" feel to it than, say, Civ 3's UN.
Starflight did an excellent job at this. A lot of the pilot-sims do a pretty good job as well.
But empire building games? There aren't any. (At least that I know of.)
[ok]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001 time: 05:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by okblacke
"Only eye candy". As someone who's been playing since the days of "ADVENT" and who stuck with Infocom-type games while Sierra was pumping out graphical adventures, I have to say that I've grown to respect "only eye candy" in recent years.
Atmosphere is a big part of a game. "Eye candy" is part of that. "Homeworld" has a lot of "eye candy", but it simpley would not be as immersive if it were played out on a flat map like Civ games always have been.
Civ 3 is marvellously streamlined for gameplay, no question. Yet a lot of the little touches--riot screens, wonder movies, full screen diplomatic interactions--added something to the immersion. (Not that they should add these things back in, necessarily, but they didn't really compensate in a "You Are There" kind of way.) |
Civ3 and Homeworld. A couple of the more boring games of recent years.
quote: As a result, Civ-like games seem to end up being boiled down into a kind of chess or even checkers game, where we're thinking of moving pieces around rather than building a vibrant empire. |
I agree with you here, but the answer isn't eye candy - it's gameplay. It needs to take away the focus of 'powergaming' and the unquestionable goal of conquest and the rigid / nonsensical diplomacy. Take a look at Europa Universalis, for example - the graphics are nothing special, but it's one of the most immersive strategy games.
EDIT: Although, I suppose you could make the argument that Europa Universalis is heavy on the "ear candy" 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|