New Steam Games Ready for Pre-Purchase!
- Thread starter -smash-
- Start date
RabidJester
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 1
When did this community become the one who would declare that a game sucked based on a few screenshots?
You guys are failing to recognize the important point here. The people this game is targeted to care more about gameplay and AI than graphics. We are the guys who were playing SCS's 688 and Sub Commander on DOS machines. We would pull out little cardboard counters and play at naval warfare on a table top hex map if the game system was intriguing enough.
This game models seven different weapons platforms in a completeness that borders on insane. That's pretty much seven games in one here. Each platform is incredibly complex and different. If you just command the frigate and then try to move over to the Akula, you will be completely lost. So you are talking about a tremendous level of fidelity in each vehicle.
Then you have the AI. It's cunning, and not just in a HL2 find you and shoot at you way. They utilize actual modern day tactics for evasion and interception. The OPFOR in this game will retreat when outmatched or damaged, come at you with reinforcements, or dispatch alternate means of engaging your ship. And it's individual AI for a slew of vehicles, all modeled to the same level. Definitely gets my nod over HL2 for the intelligence of the enemies.
Anyways, I'm a fanboy of realistic milsims, and this is way up there on the charts. In the words of Penny-Arcade, "It's not for you."
But since we are making a comparison, it's a much deeper and open-ended game than HL or HL2, with pretty much infinitely more replayability.
So, if it's your sort of thing, it's a bargain at $40.
If it's not, don't rip on it for not pandering to your own particular notions of what makes a game good.
You guys are failing to recognize the important point here. The people this game is targeted to care more about gameplay and AI than graphics. We are the guys who were playing SCS's 688 and Sub Commander on DOS machines. We would pull out little cardboard counters and play at naval warfare on a table top hex map if the game system was intriguing enough.
This game models seven different weapons platforms in a completeness that borders on insane. That's pretty much seven games in one here. Each platform is incredibly complex and different. If you just command the frigate and then try to move over to the Akula, you will be completely lost. So you are talking about a tremendous level of fidelity in each vehicle.
Then you have the AI. It's cunning, and not just in a HL2 find you and shoot at you way. They utilize actual modern day tactics for evasion and interception. The OPFOR in this game will retreat when outmatched or damaged, come at you with reinforcements, or dispatch alternate means of engaging your ship. And it's individual AI for a slew of vehicles, all modeled to the same level. Definitely gets my nod over HL2 for the intelligence of the enemies.
Anyways, I'm a fanboy of realistic milsims, and this is way up there on the charts. In the words of Penny-Arcade, "It's not for you."
But since we are making a comparison, it's a much deeper and open-ended game than HL or HL2, with pretty much infinitely more replayability.
So, if it's your sort of thing, it's a bargain at $40.
If it's not, don't rip on it for not pandering to your own particular notions of what makes a game good.
ZoFreX
Spy
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 558
- Reaction score
- 2
My main beef was purely the pricing, which I think is high no matter what. However, I do have one major issue with what you posted:
However, I do agree that judging on graphics is silly. I still play plenty of old games with absolutely arse graphics, it doesn't really bother me.
What else is there to "rip on it" for? The only way I judge games in on whether it meets my notions of what makes a good game, the same goes for everyone. The "goodness" of a game can really be expressed by how many people find it meets their notions of what is good. Same way you post here saying it's good, others post here saying not.RabidJester said:
However, I do agree that judging on graphics is silly. I still play plenty of old games with absolutely arse graphics, it doesn't really bother me.
RabidJester
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 1
The major difference being that I'm one of the few people in this thread who actually owns the game. So I'm judging it off of my experience with it, where as a majority of the people seem to be basing opinions off of a few screenshots.
It was, however, an asinine thing to say, and really has little to do with DW or me being a milsim nut or any of that. What it comes down with me is the constant demands for better games, gameplay innovation, and more depth in games. As a consumer section, we are constantly calling out for a higher quality in the products we buy. Every time some new high-tech game is released, everyone charges full speed ahead to rant about innovation, replayability, depth, etc, etc. I think people have made it clear that they don't want just another rehash of the last game with played with a few more polygons and pixel shaders.
So when a game comes out like Dangerous Waters, which is a tremendously innovative game, and mainstream gamers automatically dismiss it because of dated graphics, I think we are sending a message to the makers of our products that we want exactly the opposite: shallow, half finished games with the latest graphics innovations.
Sure, I like this game, and others like it. X-Plane, GalCiv, etc, but I think this particular response touches a nerve on me, and I think it's a deeper failing of the gaming community as a group of consumers.
It was, however, an asinine thing to say, and really has little to do with DW or me being a milsim nut or any of that. What it comes down with me is the constant demands for better games, gameplay innovation, and more depth in games. As a consumer section, we are constantly calling out for a higher quality in the products we buy. Every time some new high-tech game is released, everyone charges full speed ahead to rant about innovation, replayability, depth, etc, etc. I think people have made it clear that they don't want just another rehash of the last game with played with a few more polygons and pixel shaders.
So when a game comes out like Dangerous Waters, which is a tremendously innovative game, and mainstream gamers automatically dismiss it because of dated graphics, I think we are sending a message to the makers of our products that we want exactly the opposite: shallow, half finished games with the latest graphics innovations.
Sure, I like this game, and others like it. X-Plane, GalCiv, etc, but I think this particular response touches a nerve on me, and I think it's a deeper failing of the gaming community as a group of consumers.
boglito
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 818
- Reaction score
- 0
RabidJester said:
My point is based on business theory. If costs for production and distribution are low then it is better to sell more games cheaply than few games expensively. If these two games had not been so expensive (60 USD (combined)) when compared to games that obviously were much more expensive to produce then more people (myself for starters) would buy them.
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that 3x as many people would buy these games if they were 1/2 the price they currently are. Unless distribution and billing makes up for about 1/3 or more of the total price (at that price point) then that would mean more money for the developers and more money for steam.
I know lovers of naval sims wont mind the 40USD price tag and lovers of space 4x wont mind the 20USD price tag, but regular gamers like myself do mind paying what we consider full price for a game that obviously is not full featured in the graphics department.
While I do agree that "graphics do not make a game" for most people it is equally true that "bad graphics can break a game". I for one don't expect top notch graphics in every game I buy, but I do expect not to have my eyes hurt by graphics that look like they could be run on a 486.
One example of this is darwinia, which is a simple enough game with simple enough graphics, but it is pleasing to the eye. Attention to graphics has been a concern. With this naval sim attention to graphics has been quite the oposite. It seems the creators intentionally went for the old-school look for some "cool factor" and I, and I'm guessing most regular games, don't buy that. Btw, darwinia also has that old-school look, but it can be tuned down.
So, you can argue all you want that this is a superb naval simulation, and seeing as the market for such sims both on supply and demand ends is extremely limited I see no reason to doubt that. My point is that if either 1. the game was more polished or 2. the game was substantially cheaper they would sell considerably more copies, which, barring high distribution and billing costs, should result in considerably higher profits.
Since VALVe are painfully secretive about their sales and costs figures my opinion is partly based on speculations, but one fact remains; lower price point equals more sales. I would buy these games at 1/2 the price, if only to give them a shot and support steam and valve. I did with rdkf and darwinia and while none of those blew me away (especially rdkf was a let-down) they did offer equal or more enjoyment than the average movie at the local cinema, which at their price points is good enough for me.
.bog.
RabidJester
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 1
You make some excellent points. I've noticed that given the general demographic for this type of game, simmers are pretty willing to shell out the extra bit for quality sims. I am coming at this from a slightly different perspective, not as one looking at potential business for Valve, but from the view of a game I enjoy getting better distribution and publicity.
One thing to note on the concept of dated graphics breaking the game is that most of the gameplay happens at the stations and not from the external views. The more hardcore gamers even restrict external views completely. I found the 2D panels in the stations to be very intuitive and polished, so it looks like that's where they concentrated their graphics at.
I guess what gets me a bit upset about this is not that more people are thrilled with the game, but that the tone of many of the posts suggests that it shouldn't even be distributed through Steam at all. Besides not seeing any reason for that (I can't imagine Valve actually losing money through it), it just seems like people here are suggesting that if the game doesn't live up to their expectations, it shouldn't even be released, even when personal testimony and reviews speak strongly to the fact that it is indeed a fun and engaging game.
I suppose that's what gets me a little mad about it. But to each their own. I certainly wouldn't mind if the game cost less. I just look at it from a matter of depth, which this game has in spades. It's very much like several games combined into one, and I see that as a pretty decent value.
I really don't have anything else to say that doesn't devolve into hapless fanboism, so I'll just let it rest at that. I think people should be willing to give this game a shot, and if it's not your thing, you should leave it to the people who enjoy it.
One thing to note on the concept of dated graphics breaking the game is that most of the gameplay happens at the stations and not from the external views. The more hardcore gamers even restrict external views completely. I found the 2D panels in the stations to be very intuitive and polished, so it looks like that's where they concentrated their graphics at.
I guess what gets me a bit upset about this is not that more people are thrilled with the game, but that the tone of many of the posts suggests that it shouldn't even be distributed through Steam at all. Besides not seeing any reason for that (I can't imagine Valve actually losing money through it), it just seems like people here are suggesting that if the game doesn't live up to their expectations, it shouldn't even be released, even when personal testimony and reviews speak strongly to the fact that it is indeed a fun and engaging game.
I suppose that's what gets me a little mad about it. But to each their own. I certainly wouldn't mind if the game cost less. I just look at it from a matter of depth, which this game has in spades. It's very much like several games combined into one, and I see that as a pretty decent value.
I really don't have anything else to say that doesn't devolve into hapless fanboism, so I'll just let it rest at that. I think people should be willing to give this game a shot, and if it's not your thing, you should leave it to the people who enjoy it.
hey i got an idea
lets try to rip and insult each other over something as simple as a video game. maybe we can be part of the third part of 2010. instead of monkeys hitting the idol, we an sit in a forum and insult each other over video games
oh btw, theres starving people in africa, just to put it all in perspective
lets try to rip and insult each other over something as simple as a video game. maybe we can be part of the third part of 2010. instead of monkeys hitting the idol, we an sit in a forum and insult each other over video games
oh btw, theres starving people in africa, just to put it all in perspective
ZoFreX
Spy
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 558
- Reaction score
- 2
Agreed, the more games released through Steam the better. It's not like they're gonna lose money, and these more obscure titles need to see the light of day.RabidJester said:
But am I going to pay $40 to give something a shot? There should at the least be a demo available on Steam! (I've downloaded the demo of the space thingy and will check it out - if it's good I might well download it, but why isn't the demo on Steam!?) I think they'd do much better releasing this at more budget price, then people other than the hardcore devotees such as yourself might give it a try, which would be ace.RabidJester said:
Hey, I got an idea: let's leap into an intelligent debate with a straw man argument. Just leave.polyguns said:
I've played the Dangerous Waters demo, which has been out for a while. It's very fun, and is superb at what it does. I suggest any fan of the simulation genre at least try it out. Warning: this game requires PATIENCE.
The multistation coop is awesome, basically. I love coop games, so that was a neat feature, possibly my favorite one in the game. Me and a buddy played some multiplayer, with me and him sharing the multiple stations of a submarine. My main was navigation. Balancing stealth and speed isn't easy. How many knots you want to travel at, depth of the sub, etc. My buddy was mostly handling the sonar.
Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep.
That was pretty much all he was looking during the bulk of the game.
Myself, I was mostly looking at the navigation interface, looking at the dots slowly going nearer to each other. We spent a lot of time chatting about other stuff in general as well. On the other hand, this was all a pretty tense situation at the same time, as we had to make sure we wouldn't be spotted.
PING. "Hmm, there's something on my sonar."
PING. "Er, something else."
PING PING PING PING. "It's coming from in front of us!"
"That doesn't sound good. It's going too fast to be just our target."
"Torpedoes! They may be headed our way!"
"Evasive maneuvers! Release the decoys!"
This all happened within a few seconds, and boy was it intense. I was changing direction and diving deeper, and while maintaining a decent speed so that we might have a better chance dodging the torpedoes. Of course, this also raised the chance of us being detected. But, by the sound of the torpedoes, we already were, so we took the risk. My friend launched some decoys, all while keeping track of the sonar in order to see where the torpedoes were relative to us. Eventually, it looked like the torpedoes were off-target, and missed off. We breathed a sigh and relief, and went on towards our target.
Some time later...
PING PING PING PING.
"What's that?"
"Sounds like an explosion."
"We're not hit, what's going on?"
"Jolly crap, our allied sub is down!"
"What?"
"The torpedoes were never meant for us."
Oops.
This definitely isn't an experience for everyone, but if you have any patience and see the appeal of what it'd be to be in a real sub, then this game deserves a chance. This was a unique experience that I couldn't have gotten anywhere else. This was a defining gaming moment.
The multistation coop is awesome, basically. I love coop games, so that was a neat feature, possibly my favorite one in the game. Me and a buddy played some multiplayer, with me and him sharing the multiple stations of a submarine. My main was navigation. Balancing stealth and speed isn't easy. How many knots you want to travel at, depth of the sub, etc. My buddy was mostly handling the sonar.
Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep.
That was pretty much all he was looking during the bulk of the game.
Myself, I was mostly looking at the navigation interface, looking at the dots slowly going nearer to each other. We spent a lot of time chatting about other stuff in general as well. On the other hand, this was all a pretty tense situation at the same time, as we had to make sure we wouldn't be spotted.
PING. "Hmm, there's something on my sonar."
PING. "Er, something else."
PING PING PING PING. "It's coming from in front of us!"
"That doesn't sound good. It's going too fast to be just our target."
"Torpedoes! They may be headed our way!"
"Evasive maneuvers! Release the decoys!"
This all happened within a few seconds, and boy was it intense. I was changing direction and diving deeper, and while maintaining a decent speed so that we might have a better chance dodging the torpedoes. Of course, this also raised the chance of us being detected. But, by the sound of the torpedoes, we already were, so we took the risk. My friend launched some decoys, all while keeping track of the sonar in order to see where the torpedoes were relative to us. Eventually, it looked like the torpedoes were off-target, and missed off. We breathed a sigh and relief, and went on towards our target.
Some time later...
PING PING PING PING.
"What's that?"
"Sounds like an explosion."
"We're not hit, what's going on?"
"Jolly crap, our allied sub is down!"
"What?"
"The torpedoes were never meant for us."
Oops.
This definitely isn't an experience for everyone, but if you have any patience and see the appeal of what it'd be to be in a real sub, then this game deserves a chance. This was a unique experience that I couldn't have gotten anywhere else. This was a defining gaming moment.
ZoFreX
Spy
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 558
- Reaction score
- 2
Ok that does sound pretty cool.. I like the way you had time to chat about normal stuff while doing it so you didn't get bored, yet keeping up realism... I'm gonna have to try that out. WHY IS THE DEMO NOT ON STEAM?!
p.s. I like your writing style
p.s. I like your writing style
