RE: Why is it so hard?

[Michael Nachbaur <nachbaur@nachbaur.com>]

> I agree with you that playing one kind of game is
> boring, but the same will be if we were playing only strategy games.
> I don't know if you remember Wing Commander Armada, that was a good concept.
> You had a game in the style of Master of Orion but you could also
> fly spaceships in the battle.  People chose what they like and also they
> are influenced by popularity.  I was trying playing Go with my friends
> but almost nobody is interested.  The same thing applies to games, if
> your friends play Half-Life, Mech Warrior or something else and you
> want to play with them you have no choice.  There are also strategy and
> tactical games, turn based, which I consider good: X-COM (all of them),
> Panzer General and I don't know about others.

One of the things that amazes me, is that those old games (X-COM best of
all) had *horrible* hardware support (just try using the mouse in the
original X-COM), and they were practically impossible to beat unless you
spent a lifetime practising.  But, gameplay was the most important.

Nowadays, ppl just graft a new look&feel onto an older game concept (and,
with the Doom and Quake engines released, the game engine itself may even
be reused).

Since competition is so horrible in the game industry, noone seems to be
taking the time to think of a radical new idea, for fear that they won't
get funding for the game.  Crack.com tried (somewhat) but failed.

THis is why I think OSS has such a greater advantage...no one here really
*cares* about money, but about making the game.  So, its in this area that
we can really create kick-*ss games that go against the modern grain of
game design, simply because we can.

-- Michael Nachbaur
Codito ergo sum - "I code therefore I am"
ICQ: 3651188