 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
That GtkRadiant will run just fine from a USB drive if you set it up correctly. Stuff it writes to the registry (if any) will not be necessary for its operation. It doesn't need to be "installed" on the computer it is run from to work properly.
While you may have to mess around getting the config files set up right, my experience tells me that there is no reason why you couldn't get it going, along with a mini-quake directory with the required textures etc. The problem is that very few games manage to stay interesting all the time and if you have other things you'd rather like to do why shouldn't you stop playing? One capital crime I see far too often is games taking a long time to get going, often excused by story telling and setting the scene - things that could just as well be done in the game.
I think developers simply need to get better at making games now that everyone playing isn't teens with a lot of free time and greater ability to forgive tedious elements. My game time now is mostly spent with games that's easy to pick up and play for a short time... Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan! o... o... OUENDAN!!
Yeah what bear said. On the other hand plenty of gamers don't seem to mind having to spend hours of doing tedious things in games, look at all the people playing wow. =D I think there should be at least one qualifier for you to be taken seriously as a games journalist : you play games because they're fun.
better motivator than obsession/compulsion to really get a task done. I doubt if Van Gogh had a single moment of joy or happiness from painting in his later years. Sure game lovers may be willing to endure much, but they are motivated by a happiness factor. If the tedium begins to effect that, they will move on. The obssessive/compulsive on the other hand will just keep at it and at it, going the distance, moving the cheese further . . . if Van Gogh had s single moment of joy or happiness from paintings in his later years...
I don't, but I hope you enjoy them. How do you write white right? http://pong.hku.nl/~wim/bugman.htm
This is interesting... most games are played against either computer AI or human opponents. Animal opponents opens up a whole new set of possiblities. A book like that would be cool. If you could find someone who did custom bindings, it'd be nice to have the Quakonomicon! Featuring woodcut-style illustrations and text like "FEAR YE THE SHAMBLERE, FOR ROCKETSE NE'ER WORK TOO WELLE UPON HIM"...
heh, a good idea. That book was made for a game, there was an information about game monsters in that book, so I desided to draw a quake simbol on it =) (because monsters=quake)
maybe I'll make a proper quake book soon. cars so fast you'll barely be able to catch up with your ever growing phallus
http://www.jesselawrence.com/images/ArsMoriendi_logo_prestige.png I thought that article was pretty fucking stupid. He's complaining about getting a lot of value out of a game?
No, he is not. He is complaining about the fact that developers and publishers are focusing on their most vocal part of the demographic, people who have the opportunity and the desire to invest 40+ hours in a video game. And, huh, he's right. The number of anticipated play-hours has become another part of the benchmark in the evaluation of games in the pages of magazines and internet discussion forums. Just like graphics has always been, and physics and AI are slowly becoming. And no wonder, that's what happens when you are able to track the evolution of games. And God bless, because it's a good thing. I want my games to look good. I believe that for the money I invest, the game should reach a satisfactory standard of graphics. It's part of the experience. However, there's a pitfall here. Hardcoreists have equated good with photorealistic. ICO and Shadow... is some of the best looking games you can find, but it's nowhere the near cutting edge code of Sweeney and Carmack. Same thing with Half-life 2. The goodness is in a cohesive and apparent artistic direction, not in the number of million polygons treated with eight shader passes. We all know this, by the way, this is familiar litania. Back to the matter at hand. ICO is a ten hour game, without checking the savefiles I'd say I spent maybe 12 on Shadow... HL2 took slightly longer, maybe 20 hours or so. Very few games that seat the just one more try-factor in the telling of a story or unfolding of a plot manages to keep people playing for upwards of 40 hours. And by people, I am talking about human beings that have obligations other than to themselves. Fathers and mothers, working professionals, students with even the least detectable trace of ambition... HL2 manages that by being a fun game. The story is just icing and mortar. You could replace the story of city 17 with something completely different, and the game would still work. Sure, valve does a great job of keeping most people interested in the story because, hey! it's a well written affair. When you've played just the one game of Defcon, you've seen everything you're going to see, I'll venture to say. These are the rules, this is the spatial representation, here are the tools at your disposal, etc etc. This doesn't make it any less of a game than any big-ass jRPG. Hell, ten years down the proverbial line - some of us are still enjoying quake. And while I sometimes enjoy and desire long games, it's only when it's being handed to me by the creme de la creme of game development - the Uedas, the Miyamoto's and the Valve's of the business. Because they know how to pull it off. With every Tom, Dick, and Bill in the industry insisting on their games sporting 20 hours of single player campaign content, you inevitably end up with alot of insipid fluff. They would do themselves, and their audience, a service if they said to themselves and their teams "Ten hours is a pleasant and manageable goal, but if we only get to eight hours of good, clean fun - that's fine too." The benchmark of value should not be how long it takes to play through, if it is - we're in trouble. The industry must stop pandering to the teenage boy demographic and get with the god damn program - the rest of us also wants to have fun, and we're willing to pay for that fun. Oh, if any of you got fed up with that and stopped reading half-way through - that just proves my point!
With every Tom, Dick, and Bill in the industry insisting on their games sporting 20 hours of single player campaign content, you inevitably end up with alot of insipid fluff. They would do themselves, and their audience, a service if they said to themselves and their teams "Ten hours is a pleasant and manageable goal, but if we only get to eight hours of good, clean fun - that's fine too."
Wrath, no game studio on earth is gonna say "You know, guys, we're not as good as Valve, why don't we just make a five hour thing and call it good?"
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |