 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
child of Thor
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DrSpike
EU2 is middle ground I'd say. Certainly CoT's 3d/2d distinction is rubbish, either way. 
I'll save everyone's time by posting the conclusion that the following discussion will come to:
Improving technology increases the potential for great games. Unfortunately, all to often companies substitute eye candy for good gameplay, and no one approves of this except the casual gamers that drive the market. Still, the potential of better technology is realised in a small set of games, same as the classics we remember (like X-Com) were a small set of games set afloat in a sea of mediocrity.
The jury can justifiably be out on genres like TBS, where the effect of improved technology is less than in general, though it can still improve AI and add potential for complexity.
Don't say I never do anything for ya. |
on the money i'd say 
And yes we're old - so what, doesn't mean we don't know a good game when we can get our zimmer-frames in front of our pc's. youth - no respect these days
I think on the progress part of this thread, the bit i'm not happy with is the comparative rise in technology tied in with the rise of better gaming.
In the 80's + ealry to mid 90's technology was often the defining aspect of what developers could do. Coders would really have to push the machines capabilities to get the best results.
Now you get much less of this 'clever' programming. Storage is vast, mhz really move and ram is in plentifull supply.
So we should see a comparative rise in awesome games? well many old timers think we should, i do tend to be on that side of the fence, and sadly these great games are few and far between 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|