Subscription gaming (not what you think...)

[magburner]

Before we start, I want to say this:

I DON'T WANT THE PSN NETWORK
TO BECOME A PAID FOR SERVICE
(though there would be obvious benefits if it were)
​

I had to put it in foot high red letters, because no doubt, someone would of got the wrong end of the stick!

So what exactly am I on about? whilst playing EVE Online (a superb game I intend to subscribe to), I wondered why such a game and business model, was not present on the PS3.

For me, I feel that the PS3 is being dragged through the gutter at the moment. There is a dearth of originality and innovation, and the quality of most games nowadays seems to be dictated by mob rule (KZ2 being a game in question).

I think that Sony needs to look at additional income streams that break out of the current 'spend years on a game and it must get to number one' attitude. There is a lot of money to be made in gaming, but if your going to stick to last generations business models and practices, then I really can't see a future for gaming above the 'bigger better, badder' formula we have now.

One approach would be to have subscription gaming, that is you pay a flat monthly fee to play the game. I would be more than willing to pay a fee for a quality 'pc like' simulation like Eve Online, or a good RPG like WoW.

To some of you reading this, you would see them as niche games, which they are. But if Sony could create something on a par with PC simulations, then I'm sure they could pay their way, hence, the monthly fee. Of course there would be other benefits to paid for games - the quality of players playing it would go through the roof. Another by product I feel would be a massive diversity in the tpyes and concepts of games available.

On a side note, I also think that Sony needs to bury online multiplayer once and for all, its an old and tired concept that in most cases, is dragging down and/or holding back games development.

So what do you replace it with MMOs of course! MAG is the first (of I hope many) MMOs, which I feel is the future of online gaming, and could be a lifeline for the PS3. Which brings me back (around the houses), to subscription gaming. Imagine a quality subscription game where hundreds, if not thousands of players interact in a world in some way or another.

Games like EVE Online have proven that subscription gaming works. Sony just to get to grips with the concept. There is one more thing that I like about EVE Online, it is player driven. That is everyone in the game creates the content that is played with, or everytihng you play with in the game has been created by someone else. LBP has toyed a little with the idea, but that game has barely scrathced the surface of what is possible.

I can imagine a player driven subscription MMO on the PS3, Sony just needs the courage and the determination to make it possible. I also also need to understand the difference between player driven and player ruled. One enhances the game, whilst the other destroys it!

Anyone got any thoughs on this subject/concept?

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

For me, I feel that the PS3 is being dragged through the gutter at the moment.

Only by individual opinion... not based on the hardware, features, game selection, nor sales.

There is a dearth of originality and innovation,

• Flower
• Echochrome
• LittleBigPlanet
• Valkyria Chronicles
• Folklore
• Eye of Judgment
• Afrika
• The Trials of Topoq
• Operation Creature Feature
• PixelJunk Eden
• LocoRoco Cocoreccho!
• Elefunk
• Everyday Shooter
• Flow
• The Last Guy
• PAIN

... and I'm sure there are other original and innovative games as well

and the quality of most games nowadays seems to be dictated by mob rule (KZ2 being a game in question).

I don't understand this comment at all. Quality by what standard of objective analysis? One person's poison is another person's treasure... neither is wrong unless they are basing their opinion on something that isn't true.

I think that Sony needs to look at additional income streams that break out of the current 'spend years on a game and it must get to number one' attitude. There is a lot of money to be made in gaming, but if your going to stick to last generations business models and practices, then I really can't see a future for gaming above the 'bigger better, badder' formula we have now.

If you are so against the 'bigger better, badder' formula... you should play more PSN games... although many might argue that although small, many offer a "better" gaming experience than many big budget games... not only that, but besides their value, they also often feature more original concepts and innovative game design. Perhaps because with a smaller development budget, they can take more risks?

One approach would be to have subscription gaming, that is you pay a flat monthly fee to play the game. I would be more than willing to pay a fee for a quality 'pc like' simulation like Eve Online, or a good RPG like WoW.

I see articles about this all the time. I personally am not a fan of subscription MMO games, but from what I understand both Sony and Microsoft have discussed the possibility of subscription based games for their consoles.

As for MMO games on consoles, Sony has already been working on several MMO games for the PS3 including Free Realms, The Agency and MAG. I don't know if they are going to be subscription based though.

To some of you reading this, you would see them as niche games, which they are. But if Sony could create something on a par with PC simulations, then I'm sure they could pay their way, hence, the monthly fee. Of course there would be other benefits to paid for games - the quality of players playing it would go through the roof. Another by product I feel would be a massive diversity in the tpyes and concepts of games available.

Even though I am not a fan of subscription based games... you make an interesting point that I had not considered before regarding the higher costs perhaps increasing the number of quality players. Although maybe because I just don't get into playing with a bunch of strangers online and rather stick with just people I know or are on my Friend's List is why I have not considered this before.

On a side note, I also think that Sony needs to bury online multiplayer once and for all, its an old and tired concept that in most cases, is dragging down and/or holding back games development.

So what do you replace it with MMOs of course! MAG is the first (of I hope many) MMOs, which I feel is the future of online gaming, and could be a lifeline for the PS3.

I don't think MAG will be the first... I suspect both Free Realms and The Agency may get released before MAG. You'll also be pleased Sony appears to agree with you in regards to adding MMOs to the PS3 lineup of games:

Sony Aiming at MMORPG Market for PS3

In an interview posted by The Seattle Times, John Smedley President of Sony Online Entertainment, gave his thoughts on MMORPGs and where they fall in for PS3.


Q: Does the realignment of your group, from Sony Pictures to Sony Computer Entertainment, mean that you’re going to try boosting PlayStation 3’s online network with your MMO [massively multiplayer online] games.

A: I think MMOs are going to be a real strong selling point for the PS3 long term — there’s going to be some great ones on the PS3. You’re not going to find “The Agency” on the [Xbox] 360.


Q: Have MMOs reached the mainstream yet?

A: I would say they’re getting more mainstream. If I were characterizing it, I would say think of the video-gaming industry five years ago. That’s kind of where I think we’re at. … Five years ago, do you think “Grand Theft Auto IV” would have done $500 million [in opening-week sales]? To me, video games are just reaching the real mass-market now. That is going to translate to the MMO side of the business.


Q: Do you think everything will be an MMO in the future?

A: I don’t. I think it’s just like in the single-player or low multiplayer; it’s just about the individual games. We think there’s a huge, hungry audience waiting for that to come to the MMO world. It doesn’t mean everything’s going to be an MMO. I’m sure there’s always going to be single-player games.

So for MMO fans, there appears to be plenty to look forward to for the PS3.

 

[FoolKiller]

I was about to make a very, very sarcastic post, but opted out of it.

But considering how much press this has gotten both in the gaming and comic book realms, I am surprised someone putting this much effort into this has not heard of Sony Entertainment Online's PlayStation 3 exclusive MMORPG

http://dcuo.station.sony.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Universe_(video_game)

There isn't any info on if it will be subscription-based or not, but if any game tries to do it on consoles this is the one that can pull it off.

That said, I think you don't see online subscription games on consoles like you do on PCs because console gamers pay for DLC that PC gamers get for free, or much cheaper prices.

Now, I think that if Sony were smart they would make a move for some console exclusivity with Blizzard and throw whatever support necessary to get a WoW or even just some of the (insert preface here)craft games ported over with keyboard and mouse controls. People would roll over themselves to get WoW on their HDTV's, and would likely be willing to pay a monthly subscription fee, especially if they can make it compatible online with the PC players.

And I personally would love to get a chance at Starcraft 2 on my PS3. Currently I am planning to put it on my wife's laptop connected to my HDTV and use my wireless keyboard and mouse.


And just because I felt this is an awesome image, the full non-logo version:

 

[ceiling_fan]

I can guarantee you Free Realms and The Agency will be largely paid for by microtransactions.

 

[magburner]

Only by individual opinion... not based on the hardware, features, game selection, nor sales.

The PS3 IS being dragged through the gutter, whoring itself to whoever will buy it! KZ2 is a fine example of that. Are Sony taking the mick or what? I wait years for the game, find there is no button remapping (obviously a minor fault, but easily corrected), and no more than a week after the game is out they DRASTICALLY change the feel of the game, because a few bods don't like the way the game plays! This is supposed to be the PS3's flagship title for crying out loud!

I don't understand this comment at all. Quality by what standard of objective analysis? One person's poison is another person's treasure... neither is wrong unless they are basing their opinion on something that isn't true.

The PS3 charts seem to be dictated by shooters. don't get me wrong, I like them myself, but I don't just want shooters. how about taking the time and effort to invent another genre?

On a side note, I also think that Sony needs to bury online multiplayer once and for all, its an old and tired concept that in most cases, is dragging down and/or holding back games development.

you said

I missed out the last half of the sentence, my bad! It should read:

On a side note, I also think that Sony needs to bury online multiplayer in its current form once and for all, its an old and tired concept that in most cases, is dragging down and/or holding back games development.

Were does it say that all online games should have 8/16/32 players fighting against each other in some form of shooting game? How about 8/16/32 players playing against each other doing something else?

On the subject of MMOs, I think you missunderstood what I was saying. MMO Means Massively Multiplayer Online, it doesn't mean MMORPG (I don't need to spell that out for you, do I?), a totally different sub-genre. I have played quite a few MMOs on the PC, how many of them do you think were role-playing games? I'll tell you - none!

Q: Do you think everything will be an MMO in the future?

A: I don’t. I think it’s just like in the single-player or low multiplayer; it’s just about the individual games. We think there’s a huge, hungry audience waiting for that to come to the MMO world. It doesn’t mean everything’s going to be an MMO. I’m sure there’s always going to be single-player games.

This reminds me of that now infamous Sega quote, that reckoned the future of gaming was not in 3D!

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

The PS3 IS being dragged through the gutter, whoring itself to whoever will buy it!

At least you have made it clear to everyone who reads this thread how reasonable your assessments appear to be.

I wait years for the game, find there is no button remapping (obviously a minor fault, but easily corrected), and no more than a week after the game is out they DRASTICALLY change the feel of the game, because a few bods don't like the way the game plays! This is supposed to be the PS3's flagship title for crying out loud!

PS3 flagship? Says who? Sony? I think not... FPS fanboys, perhaps....Although this isn't the first time your opinion is hardly indicative of the general consensus... or even the consensus of the vast majority of professional critics. Although other than another excuse for you to vilify the PS3 based largely on your own personal opinion, what does KZ2 have to do with a thread about MMOs?

The PS3 charts seem to be dictated by shooters. don't get me wrong, I like them myself, but I don't just want shooters. how about taking the time and effort to invent another genre?

Based on this and past posts, I can only assume you are not aware of the full catalog of PS3 games, and like a previous discussion regarding sales, perhaps have only seen a few target specific "charts", but even in this thread I posted a list of games (which for some reason you seemed to ignore), which included just one "shooter" (none in fact are traditional FPS shooters that's for sure), and several of which have been top sellers... although if games you don't like sell well, and those you like do not... then if anyone is to blame it is consumers, and not Sony or the game developers... as it's their job to make games that a lot of people want to play... and not just you or me.

Although as stated earlier, to their credit, many game developers, including Sony have in fact made games that are original and innovative and took the risk that they wouldn't sell as well as games that are known to appeal to a larger audience.

On the subject of MMOs, I think you missunderstood what I was saying. MMO Means Massively Multiplayer Online, it doesn't mean MMORPG (I don't need to spell that out for you, do I?), a totally different sub-genre. I have played quite a few MMOs on the PC, how many of them do you think were role-playing games? I'll tell you - none!

Wait... first you complain about online gaming where 8/16/32 players are fighting against each other in some form of shooting game instead of 8/16/32 players playing against each other doing something else... which is exactly what a MMORPG game is... lots of different players doing different things.



Regardless of getting lost in your logic, why not be specific then to avoid any confusion. List these MMO games YOU like, and list the MMO games on other consoles that apparently you have no issue with or which you would use to support your opinion that Sony is somehow lacking in this depertment... as so far all I see is you focusing your tirade against the PS3 and Sony... so unless you have some other reason for this, it must mean you are perfectly happy with the "originality and innovative" games on other consoles, right?



Besides... other than just another excuse to rant, if you already have the kind of MMO games YOU like to play on the PC, why is is so critical that it needs to be on a PS3, or even a 360 for than matter?

It doesn't take a great deal of effort to connect a PC to a TV... especially if this is such an important issue.

In addition, you just got through ranting about how YOU feel there is a dearth of originality and innovation (although objectively that does not at all appear to be the case)... so why would you want the same kind of MMO games that are already out and that you already have been playing.

I was about to make a very, very sarcastic post, but opted out of it.

I had to show quite a bit of restraint as well... if I didn't know better I would have sworn we were being punked.

But considering how much press this has gotten both in the gaming and comic book realms, I am surprised someone putting this much effort into this has not heard of Sony Entertainment Online's PlayStation 3 exclusive MMORPG

See, I knew I had forgotten about other PS3 MMO games. What other MMO console games are there?

• DC Universe
• Free Realms
• The Agency
• MAG
• ?

 

[ceiling_fan]

I have played quite a few MMOs on the PC, how many of them do you think were role-playing games? I'll tell you - none!

I thought EVE Online was, and according to the almighty wikipedia it's a MMORPG Space simulation, whatever that means

See, I knew I had forgotten about other PS3 MMO games. What other MMO console games are there?

• DC Universe
• Free Realms
• The Agency
• MAG
• ?

This piqued my interest, I looked it up on GameSpot.com and found some interesting things:

PS3

DC Universe Online -- Release Date: TBA 2009
Free Realms -- Release Date: Q3 2009
Untitled Square Enix Next-Gen MMORPG -- Release Date: TBA
Angel Love Online -- Release Date: Sep 25, 2008 (JP only)
The Agency -- Release Date: TBA
Endless Saga -- Release Date: Canceled
X Quest -- Release Date: TBA

360

APB -- Release Date: TBA 2008
Final Fantasy XI -- Release Date: Apr 18, 2006
Champions Online -- Release Date: Q2 2009
Marvel Universe Online -- Release Date: Canceled
Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures -- Release Date: TBA
Huxley -- Release Date: TBA
Star Trek Online -- Release Date: TBA 2010
The Secret World -- Release Date: TBA
X Quest -- Release Date: TBA
Islands of Wakfu -- Release Date: TBA

The ratio of unreleased to released console MMO's is staggering!

 

[Casio]

I agree with Mag to an extent. I'm getting a bit tired of "traditional games", I've currently been debating for the past 3 weeks about buying a new game, one that I can sink my teeth into, but everything to me is just more of the same. I even downloaded the demo of KillZone 2, played through it once and thought "This is just COD4 with pretty graphics...", I'm tired of FPS. I've been playing FPS for 15 years.

But an MMO would be cool, though I understand it's hard to have an MMO without an RPG aspect, I feel that the PS3 needs something more, to take that extra step.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

thanks C_F. 👍

Quick question though...

360

APB -- Release Date: TBA 2008

You got that info from GameSpot?

While it was initially expected that the game [APB] would appear on PS3, Xbox 360 as well as PCs, GameSpot reported that "the PC edition was Realtime Worlds priority and will be the first to market" and "that if it does proceed with console editions of the game, both an Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 version" would be considered.

So it appears that APB is being developed for PC only right now, but both a PS3 and 360 version are being considered.

Also, it looks like X Quest may be dead... along with the developer, Spectrum MediaWorks. X Quest was talked about over three years ago, and their company website is gone.

Also, I believe Marvel Universe Online was the original title for what is now known as Champions Online.

Also, it appears Islands of Wafku isn't a MMO game, but rather a 2-player XBL Arcade game.

Also, from what I have read, Final Fantasy XI for the 360 was just a port of the same game for the PS2 that came out back in 2004... so if the point was about "next-gen" games, maybe that shouldn't be listed?

So based on all of this:

PS3

1. Angel Love Online -- Released: Sep 25, 2008 (JP only)
2. Free Realms -- Release Date: Q3 2009
3. DC Universe Online -- Release Date: TBA 2009
4. Uncharted Waters Online -- Release Date: TBA 2009
5. The Agency -- Release Date: TBA
6. MAG -- Release Date: TBA
7. Untitled Square Enix Next-Gen MMORPG -- Release Date: TBA
8. APB -- Under Consideration
9. Endless Saga -- Canceled
10. X Quest -- Canceled?

360

1. Champions Online -- Release Date: June 2, 2009
2. Huxley -- Release Date: Q2 2009
3. Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures -- Release Date: TBA 2009
4. Star Trek Online -- Release Date: TBA 2010
5. The Secret World -- Release Date: TBA
6. APB -- Under Consideration
7. X Quest -- Canceled?

It will certainly be interesting to see how popular these MMO games are on these consoles compared to the PC versions.

 

[ceiling_fan]

You got that info from GameSpot?

Yep- to save you the trouble: PS3 360

It will certainly be interesting to see how popular these MMO games are on these consoles compared to the PC versions.

Indeed.

 

[magburner]

PS3 flagship? Says who? Sony? I think not...

So you spend four years and £35 millionon a game that is NOT a flagship game!?

Although other than another excuse for you to vilify the PS3 based largely on your own personal opinion, what does KZ2 have to do with a thread about MMOs?

It was merely a statement about the state of play. I'm not vilifying the PS3 hardware, just Sony's approach to it. When the PS3 was first launched Sony tried to push it as some sort of multimedia hub. That's fine, because it is capable of that, but I didn't buy it because of that. I'm glad now that Sony have realised that its a games console, because that is what I brought it for. As much as I rant, I still believe that there is fantastic scope for the machine itself, Sony just needs to start bringing new ideas forward, and sales be damned!!!

It is also worth pointing out that the PS3 was marketed for the over 25's. where are the games that cater for that age group? Simply adding gore and slapping an 18 certificate on a game is just not good enough. Where is the cerebral challenge? Or don't the over 25's think?

Wait... first you complain about online gaming where 8/16/32 players are fighting against each other in some form of shooting game instead of 8/16/32 players playing against each other doing something else... which is exactly what a MMORPG game is... lots of different players doing different things.

Hells bells, you really don't understand the difference between MMO and MMORPG do you?

I thought EVE Online was, and according to the almighty wikipedia it's a MMORPG Space simulation, whatever that means

Of course it is, but the RPG element is not so obvious (as opposed to traditional MMORPGs). You have the choice to follow the missions (the RPG element), or to literally redefine the game yourself. EVE also has a very complex economic system that almost mimics those of the real world. In that game, you have the opportunity to do anything within the scope of the game (which includes things that cannot be written in code, like abstract concepts). Unlike console games, that drag you around by the nose, showing you want the developers what you to see. I would love to see a game with those concepts on the PS3. Its doesn't have to be a space trading simulation though.

Regardless of getting lost in your logic, why not be specific then to avoid any confusion. List these MMO games YOU like, and list the MMO games on other consoles that apparently you have no issue with or which you would use to support your opinion that Sony is somehow lacking in this depertment... as so far all I see is you focusing your tirade against the PS3 and Sony... so unless you have some other reason for this, it must mean you are perfectly happy with the "originality and innovative" games on other consoles, right?

As far as I am aware, there are no MMOs on other consoles. These MMOs are all taken from the PC. Let me see, IL2 could be classed as an MMO. I've flown in skies with over 60 planes fighting each other. Then there is Navy Field, a superb WWII naval combat simulation which I've had battles with as many as 128 players. Then there is EVE, a space combat and trading simulation that has thousands of players online at once. Shot Online, a golf game with RPG elements. Lastly, (I forget the name), a tank combat MMO, which had scores of people online.

I will admit that it would be hard probably to remove the competitive element from any game, but it could be done. Although I'm not a fan of LBP (which has elements of MMO), I admire the game and its developers, for taking a new stance, and trying something different. We need more of that kind of thinking.

...but even in this thread I posted a list of games (which for some reason you seemed to ignore)

So let me get this right. I spend £425 on a next gen machine, and you suggest I play £5 indie games on it? I will look into some of those games you mentioned, but I never brought my PS3 for that!

In addition, you just got through ranting about how YOU feel there is a dearth of originality and innovation (although objectively that does not at all appear to be the case)... so why would you want the same kind of MMO games that are already out and that you already have been playing.

You really can't think outside the box can you? I don't want to play MMOs that are already out (I'm playing them on my PC right?). What I would like is for Sony to create some fantastic NEW MMOs, other than those currently available, that bring new ideas and concepts to the table, they don't have to be the same.

I don't know how old you are, but if your younger than 30, I can say that I have been playing games longer than you have been alive. Never have I been more disillusioned, than I am now. From a position of great diversity and creativity, the games industry has boiled down to three main platforms, and a handful of genres that are milked year on year. Once upon a time, games were made for the love of gaming. Nowadays though, developers are more concerned with the balance sheets than creativity.

The slow erosion of this hobby that has been part of my life for so long will continue until someone stands up and says otherwise. It is a sad state of affairs, when I am the only guy that thinks like this. where are all the other 30 (nearly 40) something's that remember how gaming used to be?

When I first got the PS3, I naively believed that the golden age of gaming had arrived. With hindsight, I think, the golden age has long since gone.

I agree with Mag to an extent. I'm getting a bit tired of "traditional games", I've currently been debating for the past 3 weeks about buying a new game, one that I can sink my teeth into, but everything to me is just more of the same. I even downloaded the demo of KillZone 2, played through it once and thought "This is just COD4 with pretty graphics...", I'm tired of FPS. I've been playing FPS for 15 years.

But an MMO would be cool, though I understand it's hard to have an MMO without an RPG aspect, I feel that the PS3 needs something more, to take that extra step.

Thanks for the friendly comments. You too see the problem I do. Its not about hating the PS3 or Sony, though I can get irate about it. I, like you have been mulling for weeks whether to buy another game or not. I've had my eye on End Wars for a while, but I don't know. At my current level of consumption, I'm only buying a game every 3 months. Is that right?

The 'extra step' you mention, is EXACTLY what I have been trying to elude to for a long time, that is what I want! Its just a shame that the short sighted fanboys who can't envision something that is beyond what they already know, are quite happy to keep the status quo. 👍

 

[ceiling_fan]

So let me get this right. I spend £425 on a next gen machine, and you suggest I play £5 indie games on it? I will look into some of those games you mentioned, but I never bought my PS3 for that!

There's actually a lot of unique stuff there, except for the 4967 dual-stick shooters (though now that I think about it Everyday Shooter is very unique...)

Nowadays though, developers are more concerned with the balance sheets than creativity.

I hate to say it, but rightfully so. Look what happened to Clover Studio, team that developed (the absolutely ****ing brilliant) Okami, as well as Viewtiful Joe.)

I'm happy to see flower is selling well.

I've had my eye on End Wars for a while, but I don't know.

Now there's a unique game. I haven't played it but the voice command system is certainly innovative, and from what I've read, works very well. I would go for it, at the very least you're supporting something new. Even if it has Tom Clancy's name on it.

 

[Mad Matt]

As another nearly 40 something I think there may be a touch of "rose tinted spectacles" going on here :-)

I've been playing games since the mid '70s when I played a moon lander programme on a Philips "scientific" calculator. I don't think there have been that many ground breaking games which spring to mind. Perhaps Elite on the BBC micro (now that could be made MMO), Doom, MGS, Half Life, Gran Turismo.... I'm only listing games which stand out for me and where I can remember that sense of lost time as I disappeared inside the game :-)

Do we need new genre's? Yes of course although personally I detest RPGs, MMO, or otherwise. In terms of on-line experience, I think the original Unreal Tournament was the only one I've been more than 90% happy with. Perhaps I had lower expectations at the time.

Having had a quick think about user added content, I'm not sure how this will move forward. The whole Web 2.0 model has been shown to be a bit of smoke and mirrors, in my opinion. Perhaps more to the point is the technology.

In the days of Unreal, quite a lot of people made maps and skins and so on. If we look at Killzone 2, how on earth could I make something which could fit in there? I just haven't got the time or skill.

I'll stop now as I think I may be rambling, another sign of old age :-)

Oh, hang on, one last thing: @magburner Have you considered taking up golf? :-)

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm getting a bit tired of "traditional games", I've currently been debating for the past 3 weeks about buying a new game, one that I can sink my teeth into, but everything to me is just more of the same. I even downloaded the demo of KillZone 2, played through it once and thought "This is just COD4 with pretty graphics...", I'm tired of FPS. I've been playing FPS for 15 years.

But an MMO would be cool, though I understand it's hard to have an MMO without an RPG aspect, I feel that the PS3 needs something more, to take that extra step.

I only have two Blu-Ray FPS's on my PS3: Resistance and Bioshock. If you actually mean shooters then we can throw in Warhawk as well. But I also have a stack of Blu-Ray games and 40+ PSN games. I too do not like shooters all that much, but I somehow managed to get a larger game collection on my PS3 than any system I had before.

Honestly, it makes me glad that I'm not an RPG or MMO fan. I can find plenty of non-FPS's and still be happy. It seems like most PS3 owners I still see/hear complain about no selection are RPG fans.

It is also worth pointing out that the PS3 was marketed for the over 25's. where are the games that cater for that age group? Simply adding gore and slapping an 18 certificate on a game is just not good enough. Where is the cerebral challenge? Or don't the over 25's think?

I see a trend here: keep going and I will point it out.

Ready? Here it is:

So let me get this right. I spend £425 on a next gen machine, and you suggest I play £5 indie games on it? I will look into some of those games you mentioned, but I never brought my PS3 for that!

Combine it with this:

Once upon a time, games were made for the love of gaming. Nowadays though, developers are more concerned with the balance sheets than creativity.

You have gone on whining about no creativity, no cerebral challenge, no quality any more, and moan about big gaming companies focusing on making money.

First, I will say this: Those gaming companies have to pay attention to their balance sheets. Have you not noticed how many are going under, getting shut down, or getting merged into a bigger company? In the current economy jobs are on the line and those jobs are much more important than your joy of gaming.

Now moving on to your lack of quality, creativity, or cerebral challenge. Gaming is mainstream now, so those things are as likely to happen in games as they are in movies and music. But, now that these consoles have gone online the companies have offered up a new venue.

Laugh off these indie games all you want, and if you considered David Jaffe (Twisted Metal creator) to be indie with his Calling All Cars title, then shame on you. But if you want to laugh off the indie titles without trying them then quit the whining about no creativity. Sony has provided a place to sell independently developed games to the entire market. Where is this huge retail space for independent movies, music, or even books? Those guys have to put them all online by themselves with no form of publisher support.

So, the guys who are being different, creative, etc are on the PlayStation Store. If you bought your PS3 for creativity, quality, and cerebral challenges then yes, you did buy your PS3 for those games. These are games that can't be exploited with multiple sequels and whored out to the masses, because they require a bit more than just point and shoot mindlessness. Some of the best innovation and mind bending gaming that I have seen this generation has been from the PlayStation Store. They aren't good, but many are. These games at the forefront of the "Games as Art" debate.

Think about what you want for a second and how unlikely people with the vision to make that are not the guys that play big business politics. Their ideas are brushed aside for ideas that reach out to that all important young male demographic (boobs and guns). These guys don't just quit. They still want to make their games, their art, their vision. But their only option was to be buried in the Internet as just another free online game, because they could not afford all the costs that go into getting a game on store shelves. Then the PlayStation Store came along and Sony made it a plan to support these guys. They let them have dev kits, greenlighted publishing responsibilities on some, and connected devs with third-party publishers for others. And in one case, NovaStrike, it was self-developed and published by the same group of guys.

Now they can afford to be put on a store shelf alongside mainstream titles. It is virtual, but they aren't buried in an online world of millions of Flash games.

Scoff at these "$5 indie titles" all you want, but that is where the stuff you keep whining about is to be found.

Although, as I read through everything you have said in this thread so far it occurs to me that you might really just be wanting some RPGs or MMOs and could actually care less about creativity and cerebral challenge. In which case, there is nothing wrong with the PlayStation 3 as a whole, they just haven't fed your specifically desired genre the way you want.

I also noted that you have failed to mention any of the MMO-style games that have so far been listed. You just made some comment about how you don't mean MMORPG.

So, tell us, what games on PC are you wanting comparisons for? You complain about how what you want isn't there, but you never give a specific example of what you really want.

where are all the other 30 (nearly 40) something's that remember how gaming used to be?

I may be a touch too young for what you mean here, as I turn 30 in June, but I grew up on Atari, Colecovision, and Commodore 64. And when we moved up to modern style computers I got into text-based MMOs like Trade Wars (which I would kill for a PSN version).

So, I remember how gaming used to be from the early 80's and up very clearly. And those memories are why I actually lowered myself enough to look on the PlayStation Store. That is where I found things like:

An HD remake of 1942
An HD remake of Red Baron
An HD remake of Bionic Commando
A new 8-bit style Mega Man game (NES era might be pushing too new)
An HD remake of Super Street Fighter 2 (if you will count SNES era as good enough)


You're right, there is nothing with creativity, quality, and cerebral challenge in mind (except what D-N posted) and nothing for old-school gamers, especially if they have a taste for nostalgia (except what I listed).


I suggest before you complain that there is nothing out there you look at everything available.

You know, I ran into a similar situation with music and books. Mainstream stuff no longer satisfied me. But I didn't complain, I went looking online. That was when I discovered that Creative Commons is the greatest licensing policy ever. I now find myself with independent books and music that satisfies my desires.

 

[Tornado]

An HD remake of 1942

Really? That's awesome.

 

[FoolKiller]

Really? That's awesome.

Yep, it's on the PS3 and 360. 1942: Joint Strike. HD upgrade and multiplayer. The only major gameplay change was a "joint strike" weapon that required two players as it runs an electrical field between your two plans.

Here's some screens:

EDIT: And Free Realms has just announced how their price will work:
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/13/free-realms-introduces-not-so-free-subscription-option/

Free Realms introduces not-so-free subscription option
by Andrew Yoon { Mar 13th 2009 at 4:00AM }


Looks like man cannot live on microtransactions alone. Sony Online Entertainment is expanding the earning potential of Free Realms by reintroducing a very familiar MMO tactic: monthly subscription fees. Yes, the game is still technically free, but there's a new premium-tier level to the service.

For $5 a month, premium members of Free Realms will be able to access 5 extra jobs, ranking on Free Realms leaderboards, three character slots and 400 extra items and quests. It appears most of the content in Free Realms will be, er, free for all -- however, we wonder how much content SOE will continue to provide for those that decide to play, but not pay.

The PC open beta for Free Realms is due next month. A PS3 version is also in the works.

 

[Tornado]

After picking up the PSP version of Space Invaders Xtreme last week, I downright salivate at the idea of a PSN version (the rumble that the DS version has with the sharp graphics of the PSP version? Pure win!).

 

[JamboGT]

I have been gaming since the Commodore 16 and to be honest there is loads more variety nowadays, as rose tinted as my spectacles can be there is no doubt that gaming has moved forward and as has been noted here the PSN and XBLA both cater for the indie market, with XBLA providing quantity and PSN not so many, but in my opinion what is there is better.

However saying that i want Braid badly!

 

[magburner]

Perhaps Elite on the BBC micro (now that could be made MMO)

now that was a game eh? Do you remember the old 'duvet-sized' disks it came on? You will be happy to know that there already is an MMO very similar (and in some ways superior) to Elite, and I have mentioned it several times in this thread already - EVE Online!

Having had a quick think about user added content, I'm not sure how this will move forward. The whole Web 2.0 model has been shown to be a bit of smoke and mirrors, in my opinion. Perhaps more to the point is the technology.

In the days of Unreal, quite a lot of people made maps and skins and so on. If we look at Killzone 2, how on earth could I make something which could fit in there? I just haven't got the time or skill.

Hmmm... You've totally missed the point of what I was trying to say. I did not mean user created content, as in mods. I meant user created content that is created within the actual games framework itself. For instance in EVE Online, everything that you will use in that game has been made, as in manufactured by someone else. The game has virtual manufacturing facilities that players can use to create things to sell on the open market. Every round you fire, every ship you fly, has been made for you (virtually of course).

Oh, hang on, one last thing: @magburner Have you considered taking up golf? :-)

In fact I have! I've only just started out, and I haven't played a full round yet, but yes I have taken up golf! 👍

Although, as I read through everything you have said in this thread so far it occurs to me that you might really just be wanting some RPGs or MMOs and could actually care less about creativity and cerebral challenge. In which case, there is nothing wrong with the PlayStation 3 as a whole, they just haven't fed your specifically desired genre the way you want.

Of course I want a cerebral challenge. I've mention EVE so many times in this thread, not because I want a space trading simulation (though it would be nice if there was one!), but because it has an immense and (sometimes daunting) cerebral challenge. in that game, I'm never sure that I have made the right decision because there are so many possibilities, and that is how I like it! I don't want to know all there is to know. I want to constantly learning, evolving and adapting. Understanding where I went wrong, and figuring out how I can improve for the next time. There is so much to learn in that game, that I doubt that I will ever fully master all of it, all I can do is be sure (and double sure), of what I do know.

I have said it many times, I have no problem with the hardware itself. I brought the PS3 because it is an unbelievable piece of kit, and I still believe it is. I would like a traditional Japanese RPG to sink my teeth into, but I really want an interesting and innovative MMO. MAG has got my attention, and I am really looking forward to that (based on what has been promised thus far).

I also noted that you have failed to mention any of the MMO-style games that have so far been listed. You just made some comment about how you don't mean MMORPG.

So, tell us, what games on PC are you wanting comparisons for? You complain about how what you want isn't there, but you never give a specific example of what you really want.

I have said quite a few things about EVE online, but earlier I did say this (you must of missed it):

These MMOs are all taken from the PC. Let me see, IL2 could be classed as an MMO. I've flown in skies with over 60 planes fighting each other. Then there is Navy Field, a superb WWII naval combat simulation which I've had battles with as many as 128 players. Then there is EVE, a space combat and trading simulation that has thousands of players online at once. Shot Online, a golf game with RPG elements. Lastly, (I forget the name), a tank combat MMO, which had scores of people online.

As for what sort of game I want to play, well it is hard to put down in a way you would understand.

I would like to a game where the purpose of the game was not to complete it, but merely experience it. A place where my destiny within that game is determined by my actions, and not the developer. A place were death is final, but life is eternal. A place where emotions and feelings other than anger, hate, and retribution are the main driving forces. A place where acts of brutal barbarism are tempered with generosity and kindness. Where people can come together in a common purpose to achieve goals that none of them could archive separately. A place where my word is a powerful as any weapon. A place where hard work, dedication, and perseverance determine the strength of my character. A place where rewards are earned not given. And lastly, a place where I can rely on the gamer by my side whether I know him or not.

Do you understand now? I have experienced everything I have mentioned above in a number of different MMO's (and a few console games over the years). It is not beyond the realms of possibility to think that a game could be made that encompasses all of them.

I will look at these indy games you and DN have mentioned, I will even buy one tonight. I have one already - Echochrome, which is excellent BTW! Could you reccommend one that a moaning old whinge bag might appreciate? 👍

 

[ceiling_fan]

Pixeljunk Eden and Flower spring to mind. Everyday shooter is very unique, it should have a demo. You might enjoy the Penny Arcade Adventures RPG's, but they have a very unique brand of humor that a lot of people don't get. It's hard to blindly reccomend because of the $15 price point. Personally I love both of them (there will be four.) Noby noby boy just came out, half price than usual. It's made by the people who made the quirky (but hilarious and fun) Katamari games, and jusging by the $5 price point it may be about 2.99 youkaymoneyz..... I've only played about 20 min so I can't honestly tell you if it's good or not.

Edit: The Last Guy. Tp be completely honest I never got into it as much as I thought I would -- too many good games /troll -- but a game that combines zombies and Google Earth wins the bizarre concept award. 👍 They should add trophies, a lot of developers simply don't seem to get how much trophy patches sway sales. Look at Unreal Tournament III, originally released in Nov. 2007 and trophy patched a few days ago. I don't have numbers to back me up but a few trophy whores on my friends list picked it up, including myself, and the trophy patch piqued my interest more than x patch. I seriously think that'll draw more people to these indie games, but this is a discussion for another thread...

And buy the way, civilized discussions like this is what make GTP so great, starting a topic like this on the IGN or GameFAQs boards would be an exercise in futility.

@magburner: small annoyance: you keep replacing 'Bought' with 'Brought', maybe it's just me but it totally throws me off... Maybe it's your old fogey brain starting to deteriorate?
By the way, if anyone wants to feel old (this works better in real life than on a video game forum, but meh) just think that I lived in the 80's for one month

 

[FoolKiller]

In fact I have! I've only just started out, and I haven't played a full round yet, but yes I have taken up golf! 👍

We have a golf thread (PGA/LPGA). Come join us. We can ignore our pitiful scores together.

I would like to a game where the purpose of the game was not to complete it, but merely experience it. A place where my destiny within that game is determined by my actions, and not the developer. A place were death is final, but life is eternal. A place where emotions and feelings other than anger, hate, and retribution are the main driving forces. A place where acts of brutal barbarism are tempered with generosity and kindness. Where people can come together in a common purpose to achieve goals that none of them could archive separately. A place where my word is a powerful as any weapon. A place where hard work, dedication, and perseverance determine the strength of my character. A place where rewards are earned not given. And lastly, a place where I can rely on the gamer by my side whether I know him or not.

Tall order. Seriously though, check out DCU. It isn't some Superman game, in fact you cannot play as a DC hero, you are your own character with powers you select. You must team up to battle huge villains, like Doomsday, and your choices determine whether you are hero or villain. The only mission they have outlined is Doomsday, where you can team up with Supes and try to stop him or team up with Luthor to try to capture him to use him. Not only do you have to stop Doomsday, but you will be fighting other player heroes/villains who are fighting for their side. Details are still relatively slim, but it is looking to be much more than just a name brand City of Heroes.

And if decisions making your character is something that you like in your story check out Bioshock. You choose to kill or save little girls who have something you need. Your choice determines how powerful you can become, but it also determines your fate in the end.

I will look at these indy games you and DN have mentioned, I will even buy one tonight. I have one already - Echochrome, which is excellent BTW! Could you reccommend one that a moaning old whinge bag might appreciate? 👍

Currently I am in love with Flower. The PS Store has two trailers and a developer diary. Check them out. The developer diary does a very good job of selling the game in my opinion. Flower is the definition of Games as Art for me.

Or if you like the thinking strategy games the two tower defense games are good. PixelJunk Monsters has a more cartoonish approach, but you have to think and it is difficult. Savage Moon has more of a Starship Troopers (movie) theme to it, with blood and whatnot. It is also mind numbingly difficult on the strategy side.

Personally, I suggest checking out all the demos and trailers you can find in the store and see what peaks your interest. If you need help finding what people like check the Store Update thread. People comment on what they do and don't like in there pretty much every week.

 

[Zathra5_]

What about a game like Valkyria Chronicles?

 

[ceiling_fan]

It sold less than 35,000 copies in first-week US sales...

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

We have a golf thread (PGA/LPGA). Come join us. We can ignore our pitiful scores together.

FK... I thought I knew you so well... didn't have you down as a golfer at all. One of these days you'll have to pay us a visit. Our development has one of the best (and also notoriously difficult) courses in Austin. I've had many a guest with a very small handicap who have yet to shoot less than 80 on that course... and they usually go home missing at least one ball.

However, on the subject of really entertaining PS3 games... especially if you like golf... you REALLY need to go get Hot Shots Golf 5 (aka Everybody's Golf)! It's not only a lot of fun, and the online mode is really impressive... but the physics modeling and shot control are actually quite impressive!

If you do get it, let me know as there are a few GTPers who want to organize some online group matches.

What about a game like Valkyria Chronicles?

It sold less than 35,000 copies in first-week US sales...

And that's the rub... many people say they want original and innovative games... but for many it's all talk and no action, as so many great games simply don't sell.

 

[magburner]

Tall order.

Tall order I know, that is why I suggested subscription gaming. A game like that might not get a huge following like say KZ2 or COD4 might have, but it only really needs around 50,000 to 100,000 interested people to make it viable. Think: £10 a month, per player, would more than pay for the cost of staff, servers and maintainance, with a little left over for developing new ideas and some profit too. It would be nice (but unlikely), if Sony adopted a 'not for profit' gaming model, that is similar to subscription gaming. As long as the costs are covered, then thats all that matters. I'm also sure that great ideas and innovations will arise from such a system.

Seriously though, check out DCU. It isn't some Superman game, in fact you cannot play as a DC hero, you are your own character with powers you select. You must team up to battle huge villains, like Doomsday, and your choices determine whether you are hero or villain. The only mission they have outlined is Doomsday, where you can team up with Supes and try to stop him or team up with Luthor to try to capture him to use him. Not only do you have to stop Doomsday, but you will be fighting other player heroes/villains who are fighting for their side. Details are still relatively slim, but it is looking to be much more than just a name brand City of Heroes.

And if decisions making your character is something that you like in your story check out Bioshock. You choose to kill or save little girls who have something you need. Your choice determines how powerful you can become, but it also determines your fate in the end.

I think your sort of getting the idea of what I am talking about, but I don't think you are thinking big enough! A pre-scripted descision is no descision at all. It might give you the illusion of choice, but really you have no choice at all.

Instead of having a machine as the arbiter of your descisions, why not have another human? Why don't/can't consloe games let the user have total power over the virtual world? If I have enough nouse about me (in the real world), I could be a leader of men, or a destroyer of worlds - history is littered with such characters, why is that not possible in a game?

Console games as they are, are transient, there is nothing at all persisntent about the world or environment they recreate. You can blow a car up in COD4 one day, and come back another, and its there, as if nothing you did to it mattered.

I believe, that a persistent MMO, that was entirely inhabited by humans, with humans as the driving force behind everything you see and interact with would be a very interesting environment for many gamers, and if pulled off correctly, could redifine what is posible in gaming. Of course there would be many layers to this type of environment, some would encompass the traditional game types you are familiar with, whilst others, would bring totally new ideas and concpets to the table.

For instance, when I first heard about GTAIV, I was really excited about the prospect of playing in a city online with many hundreds, if not thousands of other players. I was dismayed when I found out that the online mode of the game was gimped. Why was it not possible to have an online city that you could walk around and possibly control? Manufacturing and selling drugs, or fighting local gangs of other players for control of the city?

Within that city, I could be a simple street thug, a drug runner, a local crime lord with dealers selling the drugs I've just manufactured, or the hitman that is sent out to take out a rival gang leader. I could be the next Tony Montana, or I could even be the cop that brings him down. Everyone of those roles would be acted out by another human player, with their actions or inactions deciding the course of the game. Why was that not possible in GTAIV?

As for DCU, I will look into it. I had heard of it, but was initially dismissve because of the comic book tie in. Not because I hate comics, but because there are few quality comic book games out there. I also like the sound of The agency, another one to watch. 👍

We have a golf thread (PGA/LPGA). Come join us. We can ignore our pitiful scores together.

You can't laugh at mine, because I haven't got one to laugh at yet! Still mastering the grip and the swing!

Edit: The Last Guy. Tp be completely honest I never got into it as much as I thought I would -- too many good games /troll -- but a game that combines zombies and Google Earth wins the bizarre concept award. 👍

I actually liked the demo of that game. I wasn't sure what the purpose if the game was beyond the demo, but then again, maybe there doesn't need to be any!

@magburner: small annoyance: you keep replacing 'Bought' with 'Brought', maybe it's just me but it totally throws me off... Maybe it's your old fogey brain starting to deteriorate?

Maybe it is! Just looked up the definition of both words, and I should be using 'bought'. hopefully I will remember next time, hopefully... 👍

And buy the way, civilized discussions like this is what make GTP so great, starting a topic like this on the IGN or GameFAQs boards would be an exercise in futility.

it didn't start out civilised though! DN and myself often come to blows with my view of the PS3. 👍

And that's the rub... many people say they want original and innovative games... but for many it's all talk and no action, as so many great games simply don't sell.

Hey, something we both agree on!

I'm not talking about this particular game, but other games in general. I have mentioned that I'm looking into Endwars, but in the back of my mind I'm thinking that its not so popular and may not buy it. But, on the other hand, my thoughts about not buying the game, could impact on future innovative games development. Its a two edged sword, do I take the risk and support innovation, and possibly be on a sinking ship, or do I stand by on the shore and watch it sink anyway? 👍

 

[Mad Matt]

now that was a game eh? Do you remember the old 'duvet-sized' disks it came on? You will be happy to know that there already is an MMO very similar (and in some ways superior) to Elite, and I have mentioned it several times in this thread already - EVE Online!

I didn't see EVE, so I will definitely give it a look! As for Elite, we had a tape cassette for loading games and I never managed to get enough money together for a disk drive. By the time I was earning I spent too much money on beer and going out :-)

Hmmm... You've totally missed the point of what I was trying to say. I did not mean user created content, as in mods. I meant user created content that is created within the actual games framework itself. For instance in EVE Online, everything that you will use in that game has been made, as in manufactured by someone else. The game has virtual manufacturing facilities that players can use to create things to sell on the open market. Every round you fire, every ship you fly, has been made for you (virtually of course).

OK, I see what you mean. Personally I like the idea of that, but at the same time I like a game which I can get into reasonably quickly too. I don't want to have to read War and Peace before I can start to play and I don't want to have to set aside more than an hour to play. On the other hand a game which draws you in is ideal, where the depth appears as you play. I also liked the way Elite had some flying/shooting and strategy.

In fact I have! I've only just started out, and I haven't played a full round yet, but yes I have taken up golf! 👍

Apart from pitch and putt I've never really got into it. Perhaps I should try too :-)

 

[FoolKiller]

FK... I thought I knew you so well... didn't have you down as a golfer at all.

Neither do the people that have seen me play.

One of these days you'll have to pay us a visit. Our development has one of the best (and also notoriously difficult) courses in Austin. I've had many a guest with a very small handicap who have yet to shoot less than 80 on that course... and they usually go home missing at least one ball.

Development? As in one of those neighborhoods with houses just across the out of bounds line? Yeah, if you saw my slice you wouldn't want me near there, unless you dislike your neighbor's windows. Plus, I am lucky to shoot less than 100 on a beginner's level public course. I've only been golfing for about three years (my wife got me into it) and then only play on a course once or twice a year, if that. Most of my time is spent on the driving range. That is a great way to just get away, which is why I think I enjoy golf at all. It definitely doesn't have anything to do with my awesome skill.

However, on the subject of really entertaining PS3 games... especially if you like golf... you REALLY need to go get Hot Shots Golf 5 (aka Everybody's Golf)! It's not only a lot of fun, and the online mode is really impressive... but the physics modeling and shot control are actually quite impressive!

If you do get it, let me know as there are a few GTPers who want to organize some online group matches.

I'm a Tiger Woods on the Wii kind of guy. Its the only golf game I could get into because of the motion controls. The flip the stick or push the button controls on other systems never excited me too much.

Although, you should check out my link to the new virtual golf place here locally. Sports bar to wait on your tee time in and four golf simulators. They even have their own leagues setup.

Instead of having a machine as the arbiter of your descisions, why not have another human? Why don't/can't consloe games let the user have total power over the virtual world? If I have enough nouse about me (in the real world), I could be a leader of men, or a destroyer of worlds - history is littered with such characters, why is that not possible in a game?

Simple, people play games to be the hero. When people play a WWII game they want to be a character that should be as well known as Patton, not the guy sitting in a Foxhole waiting for that great soldier to show up and help them.

But I see what you are saying. It is why I do not play deathmatch in games like Warhawk. I play team games and I quickly switch if my teammates are not playing as a team. I have little problem taking advice from someone with a better solution to the situation than I do, but invariably, even in a team game 1/4 of the players will be running around doing their own thing and yelling at the rest of us for not following their plan. Now, those are just guys in the team games, but there are always more people in deathmatch games and all those guys are just playing for themselves. Those people, who are a huge portion of gamers, will never let you lead them in a game.

Console games as they are, are transient, there is nothing at all persisntent about the world or environment they recreate. You can blow a car up in COD4 one day, and come back another, and its there, as if nothing you did to it mattered.

I believe, that a persistent MMO, that was entirely inhabited by humans, with humans as the driving force behind everything you see and interact with would be a very interesting environment for many gamers, and if pulled off correctly, could redifine what is posible in gaming. Of course there would be many layers to this type of environment, some would encompass the traditional game types you are familiar with, whilst others, would bring totally new ideas and concpets to the table.

Do you know how huge that has to be? I mean we are talking 13th Floor and The Matrix scale virtual worlds. The only way to avoid making a world that large scale would be to have a reboot every so often, and no one will stay around that long. But if you don't eventually every car will be destroyed, every building rubble.

The other problem is that if there is no AI character then how boring is it for all the early adapters? Look, we are all level 1, neutral good/bad nobodies. It will take forever for someone to reach Hero/Villain Leader status, and then that guy will be bored swatting every peon who comes to challenge him, like the dragon who lets the knight slay him because he is tired of killing every one that comes after him. And what happens when that guy has a stock of weapons or money or whatever and just quits playing?

With AI elements involved griefers create a problem. Take out even that distraction and eventually griefers will run the system. People with nothing better to do than sit around and mess up our games (played GT5: Prologue online?) will be the ones to move up in power quickly and before they are done they will turn the rest of us away.

I think the balance has been found in things like WoW and others with the PvP servers. Yep, you can go after the preset tasks, but I know guys who spend it in non-stop clan wars. If a griefer starts running the tables all people have to do is go after the preset tasks to be able to get up to a level to stop him.

As for DCU, I will look into it. I had heard of it, but was initially dismissve because of the comic book tie in. Not because I hate comics, but because there are few quality comic book games out there. I also like the sound of The agency, another one to watch. 👍

With DCU I think having Jim Lee on staff to write and aid in the direction will give this a huge bonus. But it is still far from being close to finished.

You can't laugh at mine, because I haven't got one to laugh at yet! Still mastering the grip and the swing!

Any golf instructor will tell you that I am too.

I actually liked the demo of that game. I wasn't sure what the purpose if the game was beyond the demo, but then again, maybe there doesn't need to be any!

Save the people from the monsters. It is actually just taking an old game concept (snake) that has been around since the C64 days and giving it a story twist.

I'm looking into Endwars, but in the back of my mind I'm thinking that its not so popular and may not buy it. But, on the other hand, my thoughts about not buying the game, could impact on future innovative games development. Its a two edged sword, do I take the risk and support innovation, and possibly be on a sinking ship, or do I stand by on the shore and watch it sink anyway? 👍

By innovative I guess you mean the voice commands? From the demo, I gathered the voice commands worked well, but then they made changes to RTS functions that work. My biggest issue was my view. It was limited in scope and if something happened somewhere else it was not easily convenient to get over there and see it. If it had been like other RTSs with voice commands I would have bought it at launch, instead it got put on my rental list.

Similarly, I will buy the first console RTS with keyboard and mouse support. I will support that nearly unconditionally.

Instead I am buying a cable to hook my wife's laptop up to my HDTV for when Starcraft 2 comes out.

 

[Kryz11]

Subscribtion gaming for PS3? What do I think? Why not. Since PSN is free for everyone, it wont hurt to have a SPECIFIC MMO game to pay. More hardcore players will buy that game and subscribe/pay to play it. I would. Lets say MAG is one of them, I am in.

 

[magburner]

Simple, people play games to be the hero. When people play a WWII game they want to be a character that should be as well known as Patton, not the guy sitting in a Foxhole waiting for that great soldier to show up and help them.

I agree with you to some extent, but that is because the game is pre-scripted for you to be the hero. The storyline and linear game play of the vast majority of games suggest that you can be nothing else.

But I see what you are saying. It is why I do not play deathmatch in games like Warhawk. I play team games and I quickly switch if my teammates are not playing as a team. I have little problem taking advice from someone with a better solution to the situation than I do, but invariably, even in a team game 1/4 of the players will be running around doing their own thing and yelling at the rest of us for not following their plan. Now, those are just guys in the team games, but there are always more people in deathmatch games and all those guys are just playing for themselves. Those people, who are a huge portion of gamers, will never let you lead them in a game.

I think another aspect that you have not considered is that some people, play games because it gives them control. The single player mode might make you feel like a hero, but when you go online everyone is the hero. So instead of doing heroic deeds, you resort to dominating other players, hence the control aspect. It can be liberating to know that you have the power over other people. Why do you think that FPSs are so popular? They are the embodiment of control - I can kill you any time and anyway I like, and there is nothing you can do to stop me!

Do you know how huge that has to be? I mean we are talking 13th Floor and The Matrix scale virtual worlds. The only way to avoid making a world that large scale would be to have a reboot every so often, and no one will stay around that long. But if you don't eventually every car will be destroyed, every building rubble.

Virtual worlds like this exist right now. They are maybe a step or two behind my thinking, but you can see where they are going, and it not a leap of the imagination to assume that they will get there one day. I'm also puzzled why you think that you would need some sort of matrix-stlye building to house this virtual world. A datacenter would suffice I'd think.

The other problem is that if there is no AI character then how boring is it for all the early adapters? Look, we are all level 1, neutral good/bad nobodies. It will take forever for someone to reach Hero/Villain Leader status, and then that guy will be bored swatting every peon who comes to challenge him, like the dragon who lets the knight slay him because he is tired of killing every one that comes after him. And what happens when that guy has a stock of weapons or money or whatever and just quits playing?

I'm not saying that you can't have NPC characters, just that they should not be the main emphasis of the game. As for everyone being level 1ers, there is nothing wrong with that either. If everyone was level 1 to start with, there would an ineviatable 'arms race' amongst those players that would make the game very intersting indeed. Over time, players would learn the game, and positions would polarise. It would actually be harder for late starters to get a foot hold in the game as they would have so much to catch up on.

EVE Online is a classic example of this. I wouldn't say that it is a flaw in the games design, but the way the game has been designed, does not favour the new starter. EVE has a feature where your character learns skills whether you are playing the game or not. Skills are the lifeblood of EVE, they allow you to perfrom many tasks, and give you acces to better equipment and weaponry. Initially the skills are quick to learn a level 1 skill can take as liittle as 10 or 20 minutes to learn. As the level increases though, the skills take longer and longer to learn, with the toughest level 5 skils taking days, weeks, or sometimes months to learn, and that is in real time! A guy that has been playing the game since day one (5 or so years ago), will have SIGNIFICANTLY higher skills, as well as a broader range of skills to someone (like myself), who has not been playing so long.

You might wonder then what is the point of entering a world where there are guys that are so powerful that they are practically unassailable. The answer is simple. Even the toughest guy can be unstuck by the lowlest of players, because the game has enough breadth and scope to facilitate that. I've been reading the forums, and there are plenty of David versus Golaith victories.

On top of that EVE, through its design, encourages co-operation. For instance, I have recently joined a Corporation (equivelant to a guild or a clan). That corporation is hungry for manpower, because the game requires that you have enough competant players to participate fully in the PvP part of the game. The corporation I am in, is willing to spend millions of ingame currency to train me up to a level that they need. Why would they do that? I can at any time leave, I could even steal some (or all of the corporations wealth), if I got into a position of trust.

The answer is simple. The game promotes concepts and values that are not pre-programmed into the game itself. I feel that my beliefs and how I interact with other gamers is the test, and not my ability to play the game itself. Of course there are time when my ability to play the game will be important, but there is also scope for me to portray my character as myself, instead of having to fit myself into a pre-scripted character.

The only way to avoid making a world that large scale would be to have a reboot every so often, and no one will stay around that long. But if you don't eventually every car will be destroyed, every building rubble.

Why? If the game had been marketed as a building demolitions simulator, then yes, maybe, but I believe that there would be no need at all. If players in game had ownership of the items, and structures within the game world, then there would be no need for the server to be reset. Imagine some new guy walks up to the first building he sees, ready to destroy it. He is about to blow it to pieces and then he finds out to his regret that the building is actually owned by another guy. A fight may ensue, or a discussion could too. The building may get destroyed, or the building could be left standing. You just don't know. It is easy to assume that everyone's initial instinct is to destroy, but why?

The other day, my 4yo daughter was getting into the car, as she was doing so, she was about to rip the head off a couple of daffodils that were nearby. I stopped her, and when I asked her why she was doing what she was doing, she didn't know. Now why did i stop her? Those flowers were of no importance to me. It would not matter one way or the other if they were there or not. My interest in them was purely in their aesthetic appeal to me. The same reasoning could apply in a virtual world. You simply cannot say that something one person would destroy would not be of value (even aesthetically), to another person.

It is these kind of interactions and situations that I would like to see explored in a console game. Its too easy to give a guy the power to destroy. Why not give him the power to create or protect? To use reasoning and understanding to alter a situation, and possibly change the outcome of a confrontation.

As for the guy who acquires mass wealth and weaponry, I had to look into this. Most virtual worlds have an open economy, which negates the point you raised. In an open economy, there is almost limitless wealth and items for a player to collect. Someone leaving the game after aquiring mass wealth and weaponry, would therefore not unbalance the game, or cause any noticable problem. That is why gold farming, or a games equivelant, is such a profitable venture (in real world terms).

With AI elements involved griefers create a problem. Take out even that distraction and eventually griefers will run the system. People with nothing better to do than sit around and mess up our games (played GT5: Prologue online?) will be the ones to move up in power quickly and before they are done they will turn the rest of us away.

That is why I suggested subscription gaming. Games like COD4, and GT5 are free for anyone to enter, so you get all the riff-raff playing. They think they have the right to act the way they can because they have brought the game. If you have to pay a monthly fee to enter the game, the griefers would soon learn (through rigidly enforced suspensions and bans), that their behavior was unacceptable. They then have the choice to play the game properly, or risk losing the investment they have made in that game.

I recalled you mentioned that smaller games developers were going bust or being swallowed up by bigger developers. I think that subscription gaming could be a life line for these smaller developers, and could potentially throw them a life line. Instead of chasing the chart success, these smaller developers could create a loyal following of subscription gamers who would be willing to pay for the right product. I really don't think that this avenue has been thoroughly explored by Sony, or games developers in general, but it should be!

By innovative I guess you mean the voice commands? From the demo, I gathered the voice commands worked well, but then they made changes to RTS functions that work. My biggest issue was my view. It was limited in scope and if something happened somewhere else it was not easily convenient to get over there and see it. If it had been like other RTSs with voice commands I would have bought it at launch, instead it got put on my rental list.

I put my money where my mouth is and purchased Endwars the other day, and spent the best part of 6 hours playing it. The voice command system is very impressive, more so than it would initially appear to be just on the face of it. You literally CAN control the game with voice commands alone, and (once I get to grips with the phrases), I can see the benifits of that system.

I'm kicking myself now, that I had not brought Endwars sooner, because it has a number of features that I have mentioned in this thread so far. The first being persistence. Online is unlike any other RTS I have played. It has an ongoing and persistent battle that is played in turns (when I logged on, it was on turn 33).

There is another facet to the innovation point I have mentioned. Have you noticed that most games nowadays have a number after them? Resident Evil 5? Street Fighter IV? GT5? COD5:WaW? Wipeout HD? Isn't that a sign that there is a severe lack of innovation within the games industry?

Lets take the last game I mentioned - Wipeout HD. That game is in its 8th iteration. Yes 8th! First there was Wipeout, then Wipeout 2097, then Wipeout 3, then Wipeout 3 Special Edition, onto the PS2, and we had Wipeout Fusion, then on the PSP we had Wipeout Pulse, and Wipeout Pure, and finally on the PS3 we have Wipeout HD.

Looking back at the franchise, there have been many games, but very little innovation throughout the whole series. Graphically the games have always been up there on the system they were designed for, gameplay-wise, the game has stagnated. The biggest leap in the whole Wipeout series (for me) came in the second game - when they introduced the ability to scrape along the walls instead of the crashes that would happen in the first game. Other than that, we have been drip fed features that could quite easily of been combined in one game.

The innovation that I would like to see is the branching out into new genres, creating new ideas nad concepts over and above what we currently have.

 

[myke6699]

For me, I feel that the PS3 is being dragged through the gutter at the moment. There is a dearth of originality and innovation, and the quality of most games nowadays seems to be dictated by mob rule (KZ2 being a game in question).


[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE]

"Judging by the comments posted above, I'm glad I never brought [sic] this game now!"- Magburner.



I don't know how you can make such comment when you don't even own the game. Just because a few people on this forum may have recently had a unpleasant experience in KZ2 MP game, doesn't mean that the game is "being dragged through the gutter" for the rest of us. KZ2 is barely a month out and obviously going through a few problems that I'm sure other MP games have gone through and the guys a GG are quick at soving problem and patching the game. Still, like any MP games out there, after a few months, the less dedicated would have moved on to terrorize other new games.