DOS Games Discussion

An interesting article, along with examples of excellent (old) games and why modern game publishers won't bother to make such games.

However, this thread is not about "zomg nuu gamez suckz" or "old games rule!". Instead, I hope this could be something positive: ideas to make good games. Who knows, some idealistic developers would someday stumble into this thread and make good games like those of the old times.

As for myself, I'm not a game-designing guru. I'm just an old game lover who try to learn what makes Sword of Samurai addicting and Doom 3 repetitive and boring. Nonetheless, this is what I think would make a good game:

(1) The game should have multiple layers (or at least two "main" layers) where the layers dynamically interact with each other; ie, what happens in a layer should dynamically affect other layers.


(2) The top layer is strategic level, when you call the shots, make decision, allocate resources, etc to reach "the ultimate goal". Also, there should be many ways to reach the "ultimate goal". For instance, in Civilization, military conquest or territory size are not the only parameters that define your success.


(3) The bottom layer is the "action game" part, where you ain't shooting things around because the level script says so. Instead, the parameters and objectives should be dynamically defined by the decision you make in the strategic level.

In turn, your success (or failure) in executing those action parts should dynamically affect your strategic position as well. Losing in the action part should not always mean "game over" or "restart that level again". Instead, the game should give you the opportunity to exact revenge later.


(4) Between two layers, you can insert more layers (or sub-layers) where you explore the world and interact with its environment. Otherwise, if you want to make a "seamless" game world, you can integrate the exploration part with the action part.


(5) The computer AI should be smart and proactive. In Sword of the Samurai, your AI rivals want to be Shogun too! Thus, you don't play the "mini action games" merely to execute your plan; sometimes you are forced to do the action parts to defend yourself from your rival's offensive move. IMO, this adds more depth than just "enemies who actively seek you" in more refined FPS.


(6) The game should have random events and/or "enemy-generated events" that affect your strategy. Some of those events should act as "bonus" instead of mandatory things. You should be able to choose to react to an event, or just ignore it and proceed with your initial plan. If you choose to ignore the event, it should not always ruin your strategic position.


(7) It's always nice to have smart friendly AI and alliances that matter. Games like EF2000 V2.0 has smart opposing AI, but annoyingly weak wingmen AI. In Gunship 2000, on the other hand, the friendly AI is pretty smart to help you when your hands are full.


(8) Since the game is multi-layered, each layer should be simple enough for the player to learn. For example, the action layer should not necessarily be an uber-realistic flightsim. There are reasons why I turn down all the flight-realited realism in Falcon 4.0, because I simply want to play the action as the result of my strategic decision, without having to struggle with realism. Complexity should be an option instead of requirement.


So whatcha think?

Heh, you've more or less described the first two installments in the X-COM series.


But the thing is, games nowadays are made to squeeze as much of a buck out of the consumers. And for that matter, they're rushed, half-assed and mostly, bad. You've probably noticed that nowadays games tend to be directed towards the little kids, stay-at-home moms and grandparents. Why? Because they don't care if a game is good, if it has depth. Is it polished? Well that's awwwwwright! And don't make it too complex or god-forbid, difficult. We wouldn't want our game buyers and/or subscription payers get too stressed up and stop giving us money.


Now, I like to consider myself a sorta-hardcore gamer, I just can't bring myself to play a simple game for more than 5 minutes. And that's just why I haven't bought a game in forever(bar some weeks' ago WotLK, which is bittersweet). They're simply not worth my money.



edit: eh, yea, I know I kinda strayed off the topic here, but I felt that had to be said just once more.

*cough* Larry bought Wrath of the Bitch King? *cough*

hehehe... sucker.

I agree with the OP. Another thing to add, possibly, is that when a story is involved (this is mostly with RPGs), the story layer should be dynamic as well, and the plot should vary significantly based on YOUR actions.

For example, in Wing Commander, you usually play 12-15 missions in a given game, but every game not only are the missions strategically different, but the entire story plays out differently, depending on how you act. (Wingmen you meet, ships you fly, briefings, promotions, relationships, etc.)

Or in Chrono Trigger, there are not only (at least) 8 endings, but pretty much the entire second half of the story is up to you. Even more so with Baldur's Gate 2, which has conversations and story arcs designed for each of the possible 18-20 people you might choose to journey with you. Not just conversations between them and you, but between each other.

Compare that to a lot of modern RPGs. Dungeon Siege, for example, despite calling itself an "RPG" lets you do almost no real role playing. In fact, I almost want to call games like that "stat-based action games" as there's no plot, and the entire game you're literally funneled through one straight, tube-like dungeon after another.

KAN wrote:... and Doom 3 repetitive and boring.

Not boring at all with the COOP mod friend.
With some 3 or 4 players in those narrow and dark places it's a good game.

Dogbreath wrote:*cough* Larry bought Wrath of the Bitch King? *cough*

hehehe... sucker.

Hush, you!

Larry Laffer wrote:You've probably noticed that nowadays games tend to be directed towards the little kids, stay-at-home moms and grandparents. Why? Because they don't care if a game is good, if it has depth. Is it polished? Well that's awwwwwright! And don't make it too complex or god-forbid, difficult.

Rinse your mouth with soap young man.

But... you don't really fit into the ordinary "grandparents" category, no?



Hells, I'm still having trouble deciding in what category you belong...

Larry Laffer wrote:Heh, you've more or less described the first two installments in the X-COM series.

Actually, most Microprose games like Red Storm Rising, Covert Action, and Sword of the Samurai were made by such formula. Furthermore, flightsims like Their Finest Hour (the campaign part) and F-16 Combat Pilot (the Operation Conquest part) also have such "layered" approach, where you have strategy/tactical layer and action layer which dynamically influence each other.

That's why I still prefer Total Air War to LOMAC, by the way. The former lets you doing action as execution of your strategy, while the latter doesn't even have dynamic campaign!

Larry Laffer wrote:But the thing is, games nowadays are made to squeeze as much of a buck out of the consumers. And for that matter, they're rushed, half-assed and mostly, bad.

And even when they're good, they are still based on the same "tried-and-true" formula of first-person shooter. Far Cry is a refined shooter, where you can choose between direct "guns blazing" method or more stealthy approach ala Thief. Unfortunately, at the end, it is still a linear first-person shooter where you have to advance through linear levels and repeat that level again if you're dead.

That's why I found first-person shooters are repetitive and boring no matter how refined they are, and that's why I'm not inclined to play Half-Life 2 after finished Doom 3, no matter how good the former is, because it still gives me the same basics of gameplay where you running around in a 3D world and shooting things up.

Larry Laffer wrote:You've probably noticed that nowadays games tend to be directed towards the little kids, stay-at-home moms and grandparents. Why? Because they don't care if a game is good, if it has depth. Is it polished? Well that's awwwwwright! And don't make it too complex or god-forbid, difficult. We wouldn't want our game buyers and/or subscription payers get too stressed up and stop giving us money.

Agree. Half-Life 2 doesn't have the gameplay depth of, say, Sword of the Samurai. Alas, game companies today apparently do not consider such depth necessary to sell games to "mainstream audience". A friend of mine said how people come home from work and they want to play a game but they don't want it to be too "complicated" or "involved" or "too long". Basically they want the equivalent of a commercial/American Idol/other non-complicated TV shows.

However, games like Sword of Samurai is still simple enough despite its depth (the action elements are simple yet engaging). Maybe I'm hoping too much, but probably there are still more market for deep and involving games than the few "hardcore" gamers.


Back to the topic, I've been trying to learn about Microprose games lately. I cannot read the minds of the developers, but it seems they designed the game with more abstract mindset of themes and elements instead of layers. Take a look at Pirates!, for instance. Let's make a pirate-themed game. Now, what a pirate captain is supposed to do? Alright, swordfight. That makes the action part. What else a pirate captain does? Attacking ships and plundering towns. That makes another action and action/tactical part. Now, shouldn't a pirate captain plan decide which fleet and/or town to attack, in order to maximize his profit? There goes the strategy part. But wait, where does a pirate captain get all the information to make his decision? There goes the exploration and information-gathering part.

I suspect most Microprose games like are made by such "abstract" mindset instead of genres. So they decide the theme first, and then formulating the elements. Probably that's why games like Pirates! and Red Storm Rising can have very different basics of gameplay despite being made by similar mindset --unlike those generic first-person shooters out there.

dosraider wrote:

Larry Laffer wrote:You've probably noticed that nowadays games tend to be directed towards the little kids, stay-at-home moms and grandparents. Why? Because they don't care if a game is good, if it has depth. Is it polished? Well that's awwwwwright! And don't make it too complex or god-forbid, difficult.

Rinse your mouth with soap young man.

You ARE grandparent?

KAN wrote: You ARE grandparent?

Rumor has it he's Larry's grandfather. I dunno the veracity of that, but it'd certainly explain a lot.

He does have a granddaughter he's always posting pictures of in the OT section, though.

Dogbreath wrote:

KAN wrote: You ARE grandparent?

Rumor has it he's Larry's grandfather. I dunno the veracity of that, but it'd certainly explain a lot.

*gets uncomfortable mental image about Darth Vader - Luke Skywalker "I am your father" scene*

Dogbreath wrote:He does have a granddaughter he's always posting pictures of in the OT section, though.

Yup, seen that too. Nice to see people of that age still play games. I haven't played most of the games I bought, actually. I plan to play them post-retirement (hence the hoarding of "legacy" hardware).

KAN wrote:That's why I found first-person shooters are repetitive and boring no matter how refined they are, and that's why I'm not inclined to play Half-Life 2 after finished Doom 3, no matter how good the former is, because it still gives me the same basics of gameplay where you running around in a 3D world and shooting things up.

But that is mostly what a first person shooter is about. Run around in a 3D world and shoot things up. True, the more you add(assuming you add only good things, of course) the better the game gets, but you can only tweak it so much, without turning the game into a whole new gender.

Personally I've never been a huge fan of fps games, yes, I've played Half Life, I've played the Quakes and the UTs(even Halo, bleh) but the whole idea of "run in, shoot everything that moves, then search the body for more weapons to shoot other with" just doesn't appeal to me(I'm more of an RPG/RTS fan). However, in the sea of FPS games, there's one(other than Half Life 1) that I truly enjoyed playing: Ubisoft's XIII. Now, it's not something new(nor was it at the time it was launched) and it's mostly a linear FPS with some stealthy parts but... it had *something* that caught me.

And that's, in my opinion, what makes a good game. Hooking the player in, not because it's brutal, but because it's fun and entertaining.


I also try not to figure out what the game making companies are thinking. If I did that, I might end up with a headache. I mean, if Nintendo that managed to cater to quite a large gamer base managed to fuck up its latest games so badly... Nah, I don't even want to think about it.

KAN wrote:*gets uncomfortable mental image about Darth Vader - Luke Skywalker "I am your father" scene*

... bad image! *shivers*

Larry Laffer wrote:And that's, in my opinion, what makes a good game. Hooking the player in, not because it's brutal, but because it's fun and entertaining.

Yup, while I vehemently disagree with Joel Lieberman's crusade against violent games, games that use violence as their selling point usually suck in gameplay, because they don't have anything else to sell.

Larry: Play System Shock 2.

I think what makes a good fps from a bad one is a really interesting environs. I actually really liked Half-Life 1 and was bored by Half-Life 2 for this exact reason. Black Mesa was just so friggin cool, had such a diverse and fun to explore setup, and the plot was so engaging, it drew you in. I just like shooting things, too. A lot of the levels are more about exploring than shooting.

System Shock 2 is like that too, but better. You're in a huge spaceship, trying to figure out the identify of the alien "many" while dodging cyborgs and a hostile AI. Dead Space completely ripped off the idea, but the original SS2 is still excellent.

I just finished Crusader: No Remorse, and that game had a huge impact on the way I see games. I think this game will live down the ages as one of the most mind-blowing, longer-than-you-think, destroy everything games. Here's a list of things I liked in this game (and what any good developer should add into his/her game):

1. Right off the bat, music. Necros capped the first level, and its a ruff tune to say the least. Without good music, it just doesn't compliment the environment. I'm sure you will have to let the musician play the game before they compose the music (I don't know if that's the way it works, I'm pretty new to developing..Actually I don't develop, I just program..stuff like number programs..pretty modest)

2. Isometric view. I would like to see some more isometric-view-based games on the market these days. Everything is just so dag 3D. It's a bore, after a while, it turned me off of new games, and that's how I found my way into this forum.

3. Lot's of weapons and equipment. The more ways to destroy a foe, the more I will want to come back and "play to discover".

4. Interactive environment. There wasnt one peice of furniture or anything else that I couldn't damage (or completely destroy) in the room. Everything that I blasted turned into wreckage. Joy!

5. A story like the energizer bunny. It just kept going and going..

..and so if you want to design a game, these elements are pretty simple to add, but they can make a game into an experience. Just imho..
________
[URL=http://]link snipped[/URL]

*Shrugs* Not Sure what makes a good game but this thread kinda sounds like it belongs in the Game Creation Subforum

Not really, it's not that much "how I/you/we/" should make a game, it's more "what we want from the games game-making companies make, and what we'll probably not get for a long time if ever".

Larry Laffer wrote:it's not that much "how I/you/we/" should make a game, it's more "what we want from the games game-making companies make, and what we'll probably not get for a long time if ever".

Indeed. However, if moving this thread to Game Creation forum would have greater benefit (like a game designer stumbles into the thread and takes the idea seriously), then by all means.

Eminutia wrote:2. Isometric view. I would like to see some more isometric-view-based games on the market these days. Everything is just so dag 3D.

Yup. 3D first-person view bores me to death. Alas, it seems these days games are following the standard formula of "action=first-person view" and "strategy=bird's eye view". Even RPGs like Oblivion start adopting first-person view now. Argh!

Whenever it goes to RPG, one of the niceties is seeing your characters from bird-eye perspective, just like in Fallout or Baldur's Gate, because you can see your characters duking it out with the enemies, casting the spells, etc, etc. That's also the reason why I still prefer SSI Goldbox series than Dragon Wars, despite the latter is a fine RPG nonetheless.

And even when it goes to action games, seeing through the eyes of your character is not always better than seeing your character in action. Take a look at Budokan, for instance; the game would be right unplayable if being done in first-person view.

Eminutia wrote:It's a bore, after a while, it turned me off of new games, and that's how I found my way into this forum.

I started being turned off by new games around year 2000 and above. Before that (around 1998 or so), "new" computer games weren't always bad; we had Total Air War, Grand Theft Auto, Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising, Fragile Allegiance, Dungeon Keeper.....

KAN wrote:Yup. 3D first-person view bores me to death. Alas, it seems these days games are following the standard formula of "action=first-person view" and "strategy=bird's eye view". Even RPGs like Oblivion start adopting first-person view now. Argh!

I like seeing strategy games still around doing that. Remember the original Postal? When they went 3D for the second one, I must admit it was a little entertaining, but I wouldn't mind have seen them do an isometric sequel, with better graphics. And seeing the guy smoke crack (instead of seeing just a first person view) would be somberly hilarious, being an ex-addict myself!

KAN wrote:I started being turned off by new games around year 2000 and above. Before that (around 1998 or so), "new" computer games weren't always bad; we had Total Air War, Grand Theft Auto, Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising, Fragile Allegiance, Dungeon Keeper.....

Dungeon Keeper was wicked, but it kept crashing on me. I'm gonna play it one more time to see if it does it again.
________
[URL=http://]link snipped[/URL]

Eminutia wrote:And seeing the guy smoke crack (instead of seeing just a first person view) would be somberly hilarious, being an ex-addict myself!

You are an ex-addict?

Pardon the thread hijack, but how did you stop? My ex-girlfriend is (still) and addict. She has been on rehab back and forth; doesn't make her stop at all.

KAN wrote:Pardon the thread hijack, but how did you stop? My ex-girlfriend is (still) and addict. She has been on rehab back and forth; doesn't make her stop at all.

It's all right..look, she won't stop until something really bad happens to her that makes her want to stop. Hence the term "hitting bottom"..my bottom was that some people wanted in my apartment to use and have sex on my bed all day and night, and they would feed me tokes here and there. So they did, until about 11pm one night, they stopped feeding me, and I was bugging them. They kept telling me to get out of my own room. So when they were finished, while the guy was in the bathroom, I took some of his dope from my cabinet. When he came out, he wondered where it went, I told him I had no idea. Next minute I'm sitting with my friend in the living room, the guy and the girl are in my room with the door closed for about 10 minutes. Then I hear running. I look, and the guy's bolting out my door with my computer. The girl was left behind to stall me. She acted like she didn't know what was going on. So the guy split with my computer, and I was strung out. So I called the detox, got in, and went to a 30 day program. That was May 1st. I've been clean ever since.

I've also saved a large amount of money, and bought this computer that I'm using right now. It's a top of the line computer, and if that had never happened, I wouldn't be clean, and wouldn't have found this thread!

That was my bottom! I pray that your sister finds hers as easily and pain-free as I found mine. But until she hits bottom, she will have no reason to stop, because it's not hurting her enough. Its the painful reality for family to see it continue, thinking that something will happen that will kill her. But those are only the extreme cases.

Good luck, my friend. Clean living is a million times better than using.
________
[URL=http://]link snipped[/URL]