State of the Player Address

[schild]

Sleep should not be more fun than games.

Now that I realize it, I think the whole Jason Hall fiasco may have something to do with this. Enter the Matrix was an awful piece of shit. If every game that was released got a 7.0 or above the world would be a better place.

[Velorath]

I guess one of the advantages of never having that much money to spend on games is that there have always been more good games on the market than I can afford to buy.  Once I grew up and actually had to start paying for my own games, I realized that video games just don't give that much entertainment compared to their cost, especially since the average cost of a game has gone up from around $30 in the early Nintendo days to $50 today.  It takes a high quality game to part me from my $50 these days.  If the industry somehow managed to bring games down to a more reasonable price, it might take the sting out of buying a mediocre game.  God knows I've knowingly picked up enough average movies on DVD just because I found them for 6-10 dollars.

[schild]

That's the point, the industry can afford to charge $50 a game even if it sucks monstrous ass. We, as players, NEED to stop buying them.

[Signe]

Of course, I agree.  I always agree with these activist type posts... nearly every one of them.  That doesn't mean I'll stop buying games, though.  It would leave a rather large void in the enormous amount of time I spend at home, much of it alone.  When my husband comes home from work, he's tired and lucky if he even feels like going out for a coffee.  I spend most of my days playing games, reading or contemplating (some people call it daydreaming).  But mostly I sate my obsession with games.  I try just about every mmorpg offered, and the majority have been very mediocre, as you stated.  I have to have them, though.  Righ has much more control than I do.

So... while I cheer you on and admire your committment... I'll still be trying just about every mmo or non-mmo rpg.  I'm filled with good intentions, but too weak to do anything but give in to temptation.  Don't be harsh with me... I've been out of control all my life.  To stop would be against my nature and I could implode!  It's true.

Pathetic, innit?

[HaemishM]

Most gamers are barely able to control their bowel movements, much less their inbred need to buy teh new shiney the second it hits the stores.

I am lucky (relatively speaking) like Velorath in that I've not been able to afford buying most games when they are new. The only time in the last 3 years that I've bought things new off the shelf within the first week of sale is because I KNEW it was going to be worth it. Those include: Freedom Force, Neverwinter Nights, ESPN NHL2k4 for X-Box, and City of Heroes. Other things I've waited until they were a more affordable price, whether that be long after they've been played and discarded by others or used a few weeks after release. With MMOG's, I've been and will continue to be EXTREMELY discerning.

Most released MMOG's aren't mediocre; mediocrity would be a huge leap forward. Think about Horizons and describe it in five words or less. Mediocre won't be one of the words. Abysmal, shitfest, crime against humanity, maybe, but not mediocre. You better let me see an open beta that works as well as CoH's and is that fun if you are going to expect me to pay full price for your MMOG AND subscribe.

As for other games, most have given me my money's worth that I've bought.

The industry is geared towards first two weeks of release sales. Everything else is gravy. More and more, the industry is trying to achieve that success long before the game is released by encouraging pre-orders. I think pre-orders are a bad thing for the industry; a really bad thing. It's the ultimate expression of "pay for hype."

[Krakrok]

average cost of a game has gone up from around $30 in the early Nintendo days to $50 today.

Uh, I've always had to pay ~$50 for "new" games.

1997, Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II cost $49.96
1996, Deadlock cost $54.95
1986, Gunship cost $44.95 (paid $20 because it was missing a disk)


I actually am able to beat games now. I rarely beat any of the old games like Wasteland, Wizardry 6, Gunship, Dark Forces, Powermonger, Syndicate, or Planet's Edge. Played the shit out of them but rarely beat any of them.

Now, games like Jedi Outcast or Dungeon Siege after 10-20 hours of playing them I've beat em and they go on the shelf never to be played again.

[Sky]

Actually, a couple years ago a lot of games started to debut at $39.99 on PC, even while being $49.99 on consoles. Suck it, consolers, I guess.

I actually am able to beat games now. I rarely beat any of the old games like Wasteland, Wizardry 6, Gunship, Dark Forces, Powermonger, Syndicate, or Planet's Edge. Played the shit out of them but rarely beat any of them.
 
Now, games like Jedi Outcast or Dungeon Siege after 10-20 hours of playing them I've beat em and they go on the shelf never to be played again.

tinfoil headgear

The quicker you finish them, the sooner you need another 'fix'...

/tinfoil headgear

[HaemishM]

More like "The art assets required cost a bazillion times more per hour than they used to, so we only have time for 20 hours of gameplay."

[WayAbvPar]

average cost of a game has gone up from around $30 in the early Nintendo days to $50 today.

As far as computer games go, the prices have been steady or have gone down since the olden days. I distinctly remember driving all over hell's half acre to find Mail Order Monsters when I was about 16. I finally tracked it down, and it was $50 (this was circa 1986). Fast forward to last month- I picked up CoH for $39.99. Not bad considering how much less a 2004 dollar buys compared to a 1986 dollar.

[Velorath]

average cost of a game has gone up from around $30 in the early Nintendo days to $50 today.

Uh, I've always had to pay ~$50 for "new" games.

1997, Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II cost $49.96
1996, Deadlock cost $54.95
1986, Gunship cost $44.95 (paid $20 because it was missing a disk)

I'm referring mostly to console games with that statement, as I didn't play many PC games until later.  The old Nintendo games were around $30 each.  Kung-Fu, Excitebike, Super Mario Brothers, Kid Icarus, RC Pro-Am, and various others I had were all around $30.  When games like Zelda started using save games instead of continues or passwords is when the price of console titles started to go up from what I remember.

I don't know about PC software costs at the time.  The first computer I had was a Mac probably around 12-13 years back, and mostly played the AD&D gold box games which I can't remember the cost of.  Point being that as I grew up console games got more expensive and I grew up past the point of being able to talk my mother into buying games for me fairly early on.  I had to become very picky about which games I buy because I can usually find better ways to spend $50.  Now I'm an adult with all the various expenses living in the very expensive San Francisco Bay Area and I can either spend that $50 on some groceries, or clothes, or taking my woman out to dinner, or I can buy a game that will bore me within a couple of weeks.

I still love games, and I've thought about taking a look at that netflix-style online video game rental service at gamefly.com as maybe a better value when it comes to playing games.   I'm just afraid of them going out of business right after I sign up .

[Sky]

I paid $80 for Ultima 5 when it came out. But the only software place in our town back then was insanely expensive anyway, may he turn in his grave.

I was such a software pirate with the C64 :(

[Daydreamer]

I paid $80 for each Lunar game.  But then, us WD fans simply can't live without our Punching Puppet Ghaleon by our sides at all times.

[Jain Zar]

The Lunar Remakes were only 60 bucks when I got them new.  No stupid puppet though.

I don't preorder.  Hell, this week at Gamestop they tried pimping the preorders and I didn't want to be mean, but I am sick of being asked if I want to preorder something.  I will buy it when I have the cash thanks.  Maybe I will preorder if I get some cool goodies for doing so, but normally no, no, no.

Then again mediocrity sells.  Look at Warcraft 3.  Its a fun enough game, but its about as innovative as the missionary position.  How the hell a game that doesn't have a single innovative idea can sell 7 million copies (according to the back of the Warchest Edition box) is beyond me!

At least I waited till it was in the budget racks.

[UnSub]

Hmmm...

From what's been said, it appears that a number of you wait until reports come in to see if you will even potentially look at a game.

I'm willing to pick up a game if it looks good to me. Sure, that means that I get burnt (Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was too short; as was Otogi: Myth of Demons) but also means I stumble across a few gems (Soldiers of Anarchy is a great RTS in the vein of Myth ... kinda).

See, from my perspective, gamers are pretty conservative. We go for the franchise, the sequel, the big-name-hype. That little game that is different is scary and weird and independent is left on the shelf (I'll say Project Zero aka Fatal Frame, but someone may have a better example).

It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy: we only buy recognised or big-name games, so only recognised or big-name games get sold.

Want to see more range on the shelf? Splash out, take a risk - buy an independent game that appeals to you WITHOUT looking at all the review or pirating it first. It's only then that you might see more evolution (rather than just prettier graphics on the same bones) appear on the shelves.

[schild]

Uh, I've always had to pay ~$50 for "new" games.

1997, Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II cost $49.96
1996, Deadlock cost $54.95
1986, Gunship cost $44.95 (paid $20 because it was missing a disk)

I remember Final Fantasy II (IV) costing $59.99 at Best Products in Richmond, VA on release day. I also remember III (VI) costing the same at Toys 'R' Us. Super Nintendo used to require you bend over when buying their newest shiny. At least they were cosinderate enough to give you something to bite down on...

Edit: BBCode is impossible.

[Xilren's Twin]

Most gamers are barely able to control their bowel movements, much less their inbred need to buy teh new shiney the second it hits the stores.

Average gamers buy the overly hyped, easily recognizable franchise games as soon as they hit the shelves.  Problem is there is way more of them then there are hardcore gamers who do their homework and only make "good" purchases.

The only time in the last 3 years that I've bought things new off the shelf within the first week of sale is because I KNEW it was going to be worth it. ... Other things I've waited until they were a more affordable price, whether that be long after they've been played and discarded by others or used a few weeks after release. With MMOG's, I've been and will continue to be EXTREMELY discerning.

I am right with you in terms on buying habits, the only difference being I can afford to buy lots of games. Compared to my spending habits 10 years ago, I now only buy quality for myself which has made my purchases drop to maybe 1 a month a most.  Now for the wife and kids, that's a little different.  

The industry is geared towards first two weeks of release sales. Everything else is gravy. More and more, the industry is trying to achieve that success long before the game is released by encouraging pre-orders. I think pre-orders are a bad thing for the industry; a really bad thing. It's the ultimate expression of "pay for hype."

Still lots of parallels with the movie industry.  Hype? Check.  Well known names riding their past success? Check.  Sheeplike consumers? Check.

I consider hardcore gamers much like jaded movie buffs (My god, we're all Siskel and Ebert!  well, the non dead one anyway...); most of what is produced by the industry we will consider drivel, but it may still make millions from the mass market.  Also like the movie biz the ability to get information from previews, reviews, betas, demos and even rentals and try before you buy programs makes it very easy to find out what will be "good" for you before you plunk down your cash.

One hope I do hold out for games compared to movies is I do beleive it will be possible to develop a high quality/higher price market segment as the business matures (more like the consumer electronics biz).  Abortive attempts like EQ Legends service notwithstanding.  I do meant "pay more get more" in terms of quality and service, NOT the recently discussed mini transactions where game companies try to wring every last cent out of the walking wallets they call customers while still providing the same crappy quality they do now...

That being said, I see no real way for the demanding minority (thats us) to force quality onto the industry.  I think most of us (except Geld :-p ) already spend our money on games wisely.  More or less.

Xilren

[Alluvian]

I agree with Xilrin.  You are preaching to the choir here.  This is the wrong crowd to be delivering your message to.

My last mistaken purchase was Prince of Persia, and I am still somewhat glad I bought it.  It was too short, but fun while it lasted.  Beyond good and evil was the same, but that was only $20 and well worth that.

Made some bad calls on older games that don't run on my system, but those were bargain bins and only $10 each.  I now have pretty and useless boxes for Tachyon the fringe and Starlancer (you can see I am desperate for a new fun space action game, maybe that operation freedom or whatever it is called will be good).

My next nobrainer purchase will be Halflife2.  I think I can find $50 of entertainment there between the single player, multiplayer, and mod community without breaking a sweat.

Warhammer 40k Dawn of War is also in the instant purchase category even if it sucks.  This is one of those games I will buy to send the message that I want games like this, and that the 40k world can sell copies.

Chaos League.  I love bloodbowl, have a friend who loves blood bowl and we can play this online together since we live a few thousand miles apart which makes the original abit challenging.

For the xbox, MechAssault 2 will be a purchaser for me, but I will even check reviews for this one before buying.

That is really it.  There are many others I am interested in, but I will cautiously purchase them after reviews and/or rentals.  In my field of view are:
Halo 2 for the multiplayer (looks like UT2004 onslaught but better)
Driv3r
Fable
Doom 3 (hey, it MIGHT not suck)
Chronicles of Riddick (demo from OXM was actually pretty damn sweet)
PsiOps (probably in the bargain bin)
Thief 3 (will check out the demo soon, if it runs like shit will rent the xbox version maybe)

I don't see myself stupidly buying any games anytime soon.  Others may agree or disagree with some of my instant purchase games, but they are decisions I will be happy with.

[Furiously]

You can read consumer reports before you buy a car. You can squeeze the fruit at the store.

With a game - you get a couple screen shots or a few rendered shots of the game.

This leads to people buying deerhunter.

The consumer not being educated enough to make a wise purchasing decision is the real issue. Maybe instead of educated enough I mean well enough informed. (But educated probably works for deerhunter).

Return policies for games being what it is, we don't have a good avenue for expressing our distaste with games who's performance/gameplay doesn't meet our expectations.

[schild]

Meh, companies should be required to release a working demo 2 weeks before retail release. If I can't test drive, I'm not buying. MMO's are lucky that an open beta is pretty much standard now. I get to play them before telling the developers I'd like to see a bucket full of lyme disease infect ticks shoved down their throat.

[geldonyetich]

Yeah, prices have definately gone down a bit, especially if you take into consideration inflation.   The reason is clearly supply and demand.    The interactive entertainment field is a lot better developed and there's quite a lot of competition out there hoping to grab your customer's gaming dollars first.    

I think the general pricing model they use right now (in my part of the US) is:

[*] Average reasonaly good quality PC game: $35-$45 (Example: Thief: Deadly Shadows, Warcraft III, Unreal Tourney 2004)
[*] OMG, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A BIG FAD GAME EVERYBODY MUST BUY: $45-$50+ (Example: Anything Zelda, Anything Soul Calibre, sequals of blockbuster games such as Viewtiful Joe or Devil May Cry (the original rocked), True Crime: Streets of LA)
[*] Game we don't expect to sell well at a higher price: $20-$30  (Example: Beyond Good and Evil, Serious Sam, Deer Hunter)[/list:u](Note zero bearing here between actual quality gameplay versus the price margin the developer sees it in.)

GBA Game Rule: Usually about half the above price since it's basically just a shrunken down SNES game.  (Though I've found some of the best quality gameplay on a GBA.)

MMORPG Rule: Initial box sales at full "big fad!" price to nail all the people who want to get a head start because they think a MMORPG is a race.   Then, about a month or two later sell the boxes at much reduced prices because you're really after the subscription money.   If box sales are going particularly poorly, offer game download for free from website and screw the retailers who are still trying to sell the boxes.

Deflation Rule: Sooner or later, everything ends up in the bargain bin.  With a little patience you can pick up a big name title for $20.   Used games for about 25%-65% (depending on how aggressive the retailer is).  For example I picked up a barely used copy of Jedi Academy the other day for $25.  I could have bought it new from Amazon for less than a few dollars more.

Only problem is, as Schild is telling us, there's certain developers of absolute crap who are passing off games as something more than they are.    Worse, there's gamers who pay for these games.   While it's all very good to say they're supporting the industry, the problem is that they're putting their dollar "votes" where certain economists can say, "Oh, look, people will pay for absolute crap!"

[schild]

GBA Game Rule: Usually about half the above price since it's basically just a shrunken down SNES game.  (Though I've found some of the best quality gameplay on a GBA.)

That's because companies know how to make 2d games. Particularly sidescrollers and RPGs. No one has a fucking clue how to make a 3d game - except for Team Ninja.

Only problem is, as Schild is telling us, there's certain developers of absolute crap who are passing off games as something more than they are.    Worse, there's gamers who pay for these games.   While it's all very good to say they're supporting the industry, the problem is that they're putting their dollar "votes" where certain economists can say, "Oh, look, people will pay for absolute crap!"

Correctomundo.

[geldonyetich]

Best case scenario, this leads to interesting exchanges between the developer and publisher.

Developer: "You know, I don't think this game is really ready for release.  It's barely playable, but it's pretty buggy, I don't think we've got the gameplay dynamics down quite right.   We'll need another 3-4 months to develop it."

Publisher: "Heh heh heh, silly developer.  I really don't think you guys have the talent or motivation to make a good game.   Fortunately for you, a small portion of gamers will buy anything, and that leverages my profit margins just fine.    Release it now or I'll gut your company and sell your still twitching organs on ebay."

Developer: "Since you put it that way, I suppose we can always release patches.."

Worse case scenario, the developer really does suck eggs and the publisher doesn't give a damn.

Developer: "Ah hah!  I learned how to code Visual Basic the other day and I think I can actually slap together something half-way interactive that people will pay for!!"

Publisher: "Gimme gimme gimme."

[Alluvian]

You can read consumer reports before you buy a car. You can squeeze the fruit at the store.

You can read a game review or a dozen as well before you buy a game.  And looking at the pictures and text on the back is about as informative as squeezing a fruit.  So some poor comparisons.

The real comparison is you can TEST DRIVE that car before you buy.  And if that fruit tastes bad you are only out a very small amount of money.  The problem is the people who don't bother looking for a demo or reading a review first.  All the morons who bought Enter the Matrix basically.

[Raph]

The things you say aren't risks, are. Sorry, they just are. "Logic" and "easy" don't enter into it. Every game we make is a risk. You choose to discount that risk thinking that because the industry, or any one company, makes large amounts of money that we have more freedom. But that's not how it works. The games cost more every day. The bar to hit rises every day. Margins are a lot thinner than you think.

An increasing risk, in fact, because these selfsame games keep selling to increasingly hardcore picky people like you whose standards keep rising. Meanwhile, they lock out the more casual player who can't even tell what you're arguing about on this forum most of the time because it's a level of connoisseurship that is beyond them.

On top of which, most of you hardcore jaded folks actually prefer to play games that you can demonstrate mastery on, not games that offer new and unique perspectives on gaming as a whole. The current gamer is the gamer who passed up the Sims (fortunately for EA and Maxis, your girlfriends picked it up).

You guys keep writing these all-encompassing essays about "what's wrong with the MMOs." I always read them, I always enjoy them. But why do you always leave out some large chunk of reality when you do it? :)

[geldonyetich]

So yes, people do buy games which wouldn't impress us one bit.   I could say that's because they don't know any better.   I could also say that this is because their level of expections isn't nearly as high as us hardcore folks.

However, this is not to say that there aren't general piles of crap out there that will turn off hardcore and newbie players alike.    You don't need low expectations to find something wrong with a game that crashes every half hour or is so poorly balanced as to be frustrating at every turn.

I like to think that games such as Deer Hunter are a specialized breed.  Stealth titles that are entertaining enough for the status quo, not possessing bugs so offensive as to turn off a casual player, but not really innovative enough to impress the hardcore players.

In defence of the hardcore players, however, I will say that there's becoming more and more of us every day.   I entertain the fantasy that there will be a day, if it is not here already, where the money coming at games from hardcore players outnumbers that from those who invest less time playing.  Oh, for the day when aiming for the "casual" market is aiming also to become a "rare niche" product.

[Raph]

In defence of the hardcore players, however, I will say that there's becoming more and more of us every day.   I entertain the fantasy that there will be a day, if it is not here already, where the money coming at games from hardcore players outnumbers that from those who invest less time playing.  Oh, for the day when aiming for the "casual" market is aiming also to become a "rare niche" product.

That will never happen because people aren't born hardcore players. What happens instead is that the barrier to entry rises. Only those with the determination to master all the intricacies get to play at all.

We saw this bigtime with wargames, with sims, and again with RTSes. We see it in pretty much all fields. As it gets hardcore, jargonified, etc, it becoems a more exclusive club--and this limits the audience growth. It becomes more like a hobby.

The point where hobbyists all turn hardcore is the point where you guys become model railroaders arguing about track gauge, or grognards debating the value of per unit fatigue ratings. Fun for you, certainly, but not to the rest of the world. I am sure that there are kids out there who would find model railroading fun. But if they're going to get chased out from the get go because model railroading practically takes a degree in miniature trains and all the current hobbyists tell the poor guy to go get that degree or go cry, newb... well. You get the idea.

['ST]

This is predominantly the same crowd from LtM who lambasted people who bought WW2Online and AO early.  The same sort of behavior was frowned upon five years ago.  I think it's even more telling that, here in 2004, people are still going through the same practices.

The LtM -> Waterthread people are jaded.  Many of us have suffered through crappy MM games and been burned by developer promises.  I don't think this group is really the type to preach to, as has been said before.

With my financial independence over the past couple of years, I have necessarily become much more stingy and selective.  I wait a long time to buy games.  Case in point: I just bought Shogun: Total War and Warcraft 3.  Fifteen dollars each.  A friend let me borrow Baldur's Gate II a few years ago, and I couldn't really get into it.  More recently, I picked it up again and loved it.  I wanted to buy the game and its expansion, but it's now several years after its release and Interplay's future is uncertain (plus, I'm not too happy with them).

I haven't purchsed a game for $50 in....jeez, I don't know when I ever bought a game for $50.

It just suprises me that people still preorder games and people still buy games without doing any research whatsoever.  It's part of being a smart consumer, no matter what you're buying.  Entertainment is expensive, and you want the most enjoyment out of your money and time.  Then again, fiscal responsibility isn't exactly a common American trait, but that's another point of grief for another forum post.

I suppose my point, in sum, is that the MM crowd (such as those here) say they won't buy shiny new online games.  What ends up happening is many genre fans gobble up whatever new game, play it for a short time, and feel that it's crap or they're bored.  We keep saying there's no innovation, that problems and boredom are a given, and yet it's done anyway.  Schild's point is still sound today; let's get some more people to act upon it.

I just realized I haven't bought an MM game disk since Asheron's Call (which I played for the free month).

[geldonyetich]

Yes, many of those here on F13 were at one point reading LTM - don't tell me you've unlurked simply to state the obvious.    Though I suspect some of the more extremely jaded (to the point of nihilism) are currently residing on Corpnews as part of the proceedings that resulted in the renaming.   I don't really know, I wasn't here at the time, I was busy sulking.   Really, it's been a looong time since LTM days.   I wonder just what the ratio of prior LTM readers to current F13 readers there is.  I suspect about 25%.

Anywho, 'ST, it's clear that while you enjoy computer games you're not exactly what I'd call a real computer gaming addict.  It's little wonder that you're stunned that anyone could be so interested in a computer game as to *actually purchase it when the game comes out!*   Granted, I hesitate to say you're worse off as a result, as having the state of mind to hold out until a game is available at a vastly reduced price probably saves you a mint both in software and the gaming hardware you need to play it with.

You've even reached the point where apparently you've written off the entire massively multiplayer genre, judging by how you haven't tried one since Asheron's Call.  Which is a pity, in my opinion, because the genre is finally reaching the point where the gameplay is matching the scale.   Though again, you saved yourself a lot of money in the process.

Schild's point is that he's fed up with all the crap on the market and would like people to make better games now.    It's not the first time that point has been made, but once in awhile one needs to vent it.  

Raph's point is that we wouldn't think these games were crap if we weren't such hardcore game addicts.  Addicts who have so many games under our belt that trying to come up with something that could impress us is about as easy as reinventing the wheel.

My point is yes, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.  We'll complain when the square or oval wheels don't seem to work as well, sure.   However, when you come up with those nifty spherical wheels capable of levitating off the ground and turning cheese into gold, then the whole genre will have finally moved forward and the hardcore gamers will say, "about bloody time!" with a fair amount of truth in the sentiment.

To interject a new point, yes there will always be new players.  However, do not underestimate how quickly the hardcore gamer population will inflate.   The existing ones are not going anywhere - the whole computer game industry is less than 30 years old.   What's worse, new players are going to qualify as "hardcore" in a very short amount of time.   By this I mean they're not going to be starting with C-64 games and giving you a 17 year head start before they expect you to make a better one than is out today.

Maybe a better way to look at it is simple technology.  Games have to move forward, not backwards, regardless of if you're new to the hobby or have been around for decades.

[Jain Zar]

-Mostly aiming this at Raph if he is who I think he is.  If not, its just some general thoughts on games.-

Isnt the logic of all games to be easy to pick up, but difficult to master?  I don't think we all want hyper complicated games.  We want FUN games that compel us to play and are full of "HOLY SH!T THAT'S AWESOME!!" moments.  Overly complicated games end up being well intentioned failures.  I would say your two main contributions to the MMORPG genre would fit that bill.  Early UO and SWG are both VERY interesting at what they try to pull off.  But, either due to players or just basic reality of what makes a fun game, neither one is particularly fun, nor was either one very easy to pick up and learn.  I spent my first week in SWG just learning how to play the damned thing.  UO was mostly spent getting ganked trying to find a bunny rabbit to kill or clicking on a combat dummy...

Look at a game like Advance Wars.  Its VERY simple to learn, but mastering it takes time.  Its the reason the early Wing Commander games kicked the ass of the X Wing titles.  They were easier to play, with no whacko power settings to toy with, and even when Prophecy added said function, you could ignore it.  Wing Commander also had a more reasonable difficulty curve and a branching storyline that also kept you playing, but those are two whole other concepts of making a good game.

A good game isn't about graphics.  As long as its smooth and pleasing to the eye, a couple extra polygons and some bumbp mapping aren't gonna do diddly squat.  

IMHO, a good game should have these basic qualities, some of which I mentioned in the spiel above.  There are more, but 5 should suffice for now.

1: Easy to learn how to play: Either phased learning within the game, or a tutorial set of levels that should take under an hour total.  I should completely comprehend at least 75% of the game's systems before the first hour of gameplay is up.  For "arcade" styled games, by the first Game Over screen.  You wanna add extra skills and abilities to learn later, ala Metroid or some other Skinner Box like thing?  Kewlies.  But the main core of gameplay should be learned quickly.

2: A reasonable level of difficulty:  Don't cheese me, or make things intentionally hard so your 10 hours of actual content takes 50.  When I lose, I should feel I f*cked up.  Not that the game is cheap and unfair.  I should go "Wow... ill get you next time you sonofabitch!", or "Oh!  How could I have been so dumb?  I know what I can do here!"

3: An easy to use interface:  This also fits in with 1.  I should become one with the game.  The interface should effectively cease to exist.  The baddies in game are what I should fight with, not remembering 30 command keystrokes, some insane multibutton combo attack. or giving my mouse hand carpal tunnel trying to do anything.  (Hello Temple of Elemental Evil!)

4: A feeling I am in control:  I should feel my skills, my in game actions, and the general gameplay is based on me, not what you the designer want of me.  If I don't want to do thing X or marry that goddamned princess (Hello Dragon Warrior!), I shouldn't have to.  Reward me for thinking outside the box like Fallout, Deus Ex, and Super Mario Brothers did.  Don't get pissed when someone finds an easier way to get through your content.  Because we WILL.  Its not just trying to take the path of least resistance.  Its because players are the work of chaos, and we are by and large creative little SOBs who will try anything, if just for spits and giggles.

5: Fun stuff to do:  Whacking the same foozles endlessly doesn't cut it after a while.  Its why Diablo 2 sucked ass.  We already whacked the same foozles in the same basic way in the original.  Making us whack more of them for longer doesn't appeal to everybody.  Mix it up.  Give us some story or nifty keen missions.  Push the game engine till it screams.  Not all of us are like the little old ladies who will spend their entire weekend pulling a lever at a slot machine.  Variety is good, unpredictability is good.  Doing the exact same thing for 50 hours?  Ungood.

[Krakrok]

1..2..3..4..5

I think I'll go play Golden Axe now.

[ajax34i]

I'd like to say that you base your qualification of "crap" on your gaming preferences, and then expect that everyone should have your preferences.

CoH is the biggest pile of crap in the world.  I like Deer Hunter.  I find it fun.  Why should I conform to YOUR definition of what's good and what's not?

Why do you assume that anyone who buys a game YOU consider "crap" is dumb, or making an uninformed decision?

And while this board is available for the devs to find out what the few here think, honestly the only measure of success they can use is number of boxes sold.

And finally, "we have to start voting with your wallets" sounds terribly similar to "let's all get organized and not log in on Thursday to protest whatever."   Pointless call.

[Velorath]

I'd like to say that you base your qualification of "crap" on your gaming preferences, and then expect that everyone should have your preferences.

CoH is the biggest pile of crap in the world.  I like Deer Hunter.  I find it fun.  Why should I conform to YOUR definition of what's good and what's not?

Why do you assume that anyone who buys a game YOU consider "crap" is dumb, or making an uninformed decision?

I think you missed the point completely.  Nobody is telling you that you aren't allowed to find Deer Hunter fun or that you have to buy CoH.  Fuck, if even one redneck that buys Deer Hunter ends up spending less time hunting real deer and somehow fooling himself into thinking it's a fucking sport, than I'm happy for its existance.

When you buy an MMORPG on launch day though and it repeatedly charges your credit card, that's crap.  When games like Shadowbane are released with so many bugs and other problems that they are unplayable for many people that's a big fucking issue. When a lot of people bought MGS2 or Enter the Matrix on release day based on hype and ended up not liking them, that was making an uninformed decision.  When people buy a game just because it has Star Wars, Final Fantasy, or Warcraft in the title that's also being uninformed.  Or take a look at this gem and then try telling me this game is only crap based on one man's gaming preferences.

The problem is that there is a large amount of people out there who buy games almost expecting them to be crap because they fall prey to the hype, have to have all the games in the series, or because they have some odd notion that playing Lineage 2 for 200+ hours unlocks "fun mode".  These are the same kind of people that make Troy a hit at the box office despite the fact that it felt the need to butcher a story around 2,700 years old just to make it more "Hollywood".  It doesn't make any sense to be handing the people that make these games $40 or $50 bucks a game.

And while this board is available for the devs to find out what the few here think, honestly the only measure of success they can use is number of boxes sold.

Great, we can all play the latest Sims expansion, while listening to Britney Spears and watching American Idol.  Then we can hang out at Starbucks and catch "The Day After Tomorrow" later on.  Yep, life will be so much better when the last bits of artistic integrity in the entertainment industry are wiped out by graphs and sales charts.

Crap is out there.  It's not just a figment of the imagination.  There are people out there who by their own admission buy a lot of crap.  I've seen them.  I've talked to them.  If I had more money I probably would have been one of them.

[Murgos]

Great, we can all play the latest Sims expansion, while listening to Britney Spears and watching American Idol.  Then we can hang out at Starbucks and catch "The Day After Tomorrow" later on.  Yep, life will be so much better when the last bits of artistic integrity in the entertainment industry are wiped out by graphs and sales charts.

Fortunately for us that even though the big money may lie is sticking your product squarly in the middle of the bell curve there is only so much room in the middle and still quite a bit of profit to be made a little way out from center.

['ST]

Geldonyetich,

I think I may have given off a slightly extreme impression.  I love games.  I play many of them and I download lots of demos and such, it's just that it's rare that I can justify purchasing at the time.  I'm actually having trouble, presently, because there are so many great-looking games coming out next fall (right when I get to college, go figure).  Of course, the jaded part comes in when I realize that they're not all going to be bug-free, perfect examples of gaming.

Nor have I written off the MM genre.  Far from that.  Years ago someone pointed out that many of those who speak against the genre and call out its faults really do love the genre and the promise it holds.  I've followed many MM games, and I've played quite a few.  I just have not, however, purchased a retail box for one since AC.  I'm surrently playing Dark Age of Camelot, but I took advantage of their 7-day download trial.  They've gotten one monthly payment so far.  I'm banking on the much better PvP system to come out in June - an example of being excited about something before the fact, I guess, though I talked with someone in the company about how the system was shaping up.

I've seen a lot of new ideas brought forth, and that's why I -- and, I expect, many of you -- hold such hope for MM games.  Shattered Galaxy has an RTS feel and subscriptionless pay system (you pay for extras); Guild Wars is looking for no subscription, but subsistence on expansions; it seems like several games are being designed as dynamic worlds.  The possibilities and different ways to do things are endless, yet so few of them work.

To contribute more directly:
I think DarkSpace did an excellent job at getting gamers into the game but also keeping many potential things above their head.  You can be an engineer, a fighter, a bomber, a troop transporter, a supplier, a defender/escort, and engage in those at various levels.  You can gain experience in any of those activities.  After two weeks of heavy playing, I still hadn't tried everything available yet did not feel correspondingly restricted.

DarkSpace hasn't done very well, though.  It seems to fit the formula enough that it should get a sizable number of subscribers to keep on it for a few months.  For all its accessibility and depth at the early levels, only the hardcore stay.   Jain Zar, you talk about game quality being that which gains players.  I think that, time and time again, we've seen (objectively) quality games with bad specific mechanics fail largely because of the gameplay's mechanical shortcomings rather than overt and glaring issues with the game's construction.  It's not enough to make a polished package.  I didn't play SWG, but from what I hear the main issue was your point #5.  It got 4/5 points and has a a few thousand subscribers, yet many will say it failed to provide enough content or anything other than an unfun grind.  Same with EQ: it's a fine game in presentation, just boring doing everything over and over.  400,000 subscibers, most successful MMORPG within America.

It's hard to pinpoint where a design has failed largely because those mechanics about which many people complain are being consumed by hundreds of thousands of people.[/i]

[schild]

Just an addendum. I was discussing this with Soulflame the other day. MMOGs will NOT evolve until they break the restraints of Gygax. He is a pox on the roleplaying world that must be eliminated at all costs. The next 5 years of GDCs should be about a battle plan to put that fucker to rest.