More JE lubbin

[Spazmo]

That's not always true, Saint. It is true that copies of Diablo have failed, but what about copies of Command & Conquer and Warcraft? Any gamer will remember the insane amount of RTS games that came out in 1997-1999. The great majority was crap that flopped, but a whole heck of a lot of franchises were born and flourished, like Total Annihilation or Age of Empires. Same deal with the MMORPG. Ultima Online and EverQuest were released and then a huge flood of other games came out and did pretty well, such as Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot.

Now, obviously, you're going to point out that Total Annihilation had a major difference in its 3D graphics and huge variety of units. And Age of Empires injected a little more town management into the traditional RTS. And that Dark Age of Camelot introduced the concept of Realm vs. Realm combat. But these are just gimmicks. They're terrific ideas that have greatly improved the games, but the fact remains that they just took the core gameplay and tacked on something new and cool.

So maybe Jefferson will just be Neverwinter Nights will something new and cool tacked on, God forbid.

[Rosh]

That's not always true, Saint. It is true that copies of Diablo have failed, but what about copies of Command & Conquer and Warcraft? Any gamer will remember the insane amount of RTS games that came out in 1997-1999. The great majority was crap that flopped, but a whole heck of a lot of franchises were born and flourished, like Total Annihilation or Age of Empires.

No, what THEY did was take the same old rehashed bullshit of C&C and improved greatly upon it. Hence why most C&C/RA people don't like other RTS games, cinsidering C&C/RA has used the same crap LOS/AI/Unit Creation scheme that they always have, which always has been flawed in terms of real tactics like two fronts, multiple bases, etc.

Do not make the mistake by saying innovative improvements are cloning. Westwood has for years shown their "innovation", which after the first burst has been to make different-flavored units like Tesla soldiers that have been around since RA1 if you knew how to edit it.

Same deal with the MMORPG. Ultima Online and EverQuest were released and then a huge flood of other games came out and did pretty well, such as Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot.

This isn't quite a good point, since MMORPG games have been around for a while, and have been through a number of mechanics. UO and EQ were hardly the first, they just had either a name or what amounts as a graphical interface for a MERC back-end.

Genres are genres. CLONES are a completely different thing. Similarity is one thing, but when it goes to the point of borrowing from too many elements, at the cost of it's own integrity (having it in for the sake of it), then it's by all intents a clone.

Now, obviously, you're going to point out that Total Annihilation had a major difference in its 3D graphics and huge variety of units. And Age of Empires injected a little more town management into the traditional RTS.

And a bit more creativity than what the latest installment of RA offered.

And that Dark Age of Camelot introduced the concept of Realm vs. Realm combat. But these are just gimmicks. They're terrific ideas that have greatly improved the games, but the fact remains that they just took the core gameplay and tacked on something new and cool.

Not really. They took what worked, and IMPROVED upon it. That's a FAR cry from cloning. TA improved upon LOS, AI, and much more that still lay flawed in RA2, and which came out after the other? DAoC added more PvP play, in both nullifying any old person you find in the wilderness killing you out of the blue, but also promoting teams in ways no other MMORPG has done before. That's not a gimmick, that's innovative gameplay in solving complaints of some players while offering new kinds of gameplay.

[Saint_Proverbius]

Now, obviously, you're going to point out that Total Annihilation had a major difference in its 3D graphics and huge variety of units.

Total Annihilation offered a hell of a lot more than 3D and more units. It offered a huge number of new concepts:

• Factory assistance by construction units, both direct and automated
• Repair of units by construction units, both direct and automated
• Automatic air patrol "return to base/carrier" repairing
• Actual artillery
• Reclaimation of dead units/buildings/terrain objects
• Construct and forget resourcing(less micromanagement)
• Commander on Battlefield
• Terrain height affects on projectiles.
• Units with multiple weapons
• Etc.

What's more, it also improved many aspects RTS games already had, like the way sea warfare was handled.

Saying TA is a C&C clone is a very narrow-minded and over simplified description, especially considering no RTS to date has managed to have as many features packed in to it. Warzone 2100 came close though.

[Spazmo]

My point was that although they totally revolutionized the RTS genre, Cavedog and Ensemble were still jumping on the RTS bandwagon, just as Turbine and Mythic jumped on the MMORPG bandwagon.

And Rosh, although UO and EQ are clearly not the first online RPGs, they are the first ones to be a part of the gaming mainstream. When's the last time a MUD got reviewed by any major gaming publication?

[Mad Max RW]

Why don't these game developer, designer, whatever people shut the hell up and stop trying to act like rockstars? Jeezus tap dancing christ. Sawyer keeps repeating the same thing over and fucking over again. There's no point in asking about Fallout 3 or anything from him or the rest of Black Isle.

[Rosh]

My point was that although they totally revolutionized the RTS genre, Cavedog and Ensemble were still jumping on the RTS bandwagon, just as Turbine and Mythic jumped on the MMORPG bandwagon.

Yes, just like Fallout jumped on the CRPG bandwagon. Genre does not mean clone, and the RTS genre was hardly invented by C&C either.

And Rosh, although UO and EQ are clearly not the first online RPGs, they are the first ones to be a part of the gaming mainstream.

Not really. Not by a few years. By your example, UO and EQ were the ones who were bandwagon jumpers.

When's the last time a MUD got reviewed by any major gaming publication?

From the last one I bothered to check up on, it was either last year or about a year and a half ago. It had something to do with a full-page ad run in PC Gamer and other magazines for the poster-child of why the open-source community is drying up, Medievia.

[Spazmo]

Yes, just like Fallout jumped on the CRPG bandwagon. Genre does not mean clone, and the RTS genre was hardly invented by C&C either.

Fallout did not jump on the CRPG bandwagon. At the time, the CRPG was more or less dead and Fallout did something different (i.e., not an RTS or an FPS). That Cavedog or Ensemble made an RTS at all instead of something else is, in my opinion, because of the huge success of previous RTS games from Westwood and Blizzard.

Not really. Not by a few years. By your example, UO and EQ were the ones who were bandwagon jumpers.

All right, I concede the point, but it's moot. I'm just saying that other companies have seen the success of UO and EQ and whatever predecessors have had and decided to make an MMORPG, too.

From the last one I bothered to check up on, it was either last year or about a year and a half ago. It had something to do with a full-page ad run in PC Gamer and other magazines for the poster-child of why the open-source community is drying up, Medievia.

The company paying PC Gamer to run an ad and PC Gamer (and thus the mainstream gaming community represented by PCG) reviewing the game and taking an interest in it are two different things. But once again, which game can be called the first MMORPG is a moot point.

And before this continues, I would like to point out that I do not meant to slight any games mentioned above in any way. I am aware of the fact that these are some terrific games.

[Mad Max RW]

When you say MMORPG do you mean the crazy bullshit games loaded with flashy graphics and no gameplay, or anything having to do with large communities of people role playing online? By definition, the first MMORPG was dungeons and dragons in the early 80s when the only people who owned a computer, let alone communicate through it, were crazy tech nerds.

[morris]

Now, obviously, you're going to point out that Total Annihilation had a major difference in its 3D graphics and huge variety of units.

Total Annihilation offered a hell of a lot more than 3D and more units. It offered a huge number of new concepts:

• Factory assistance by construction units, both direct and automated
• Repair of units by construction units, both direct and automated
• Automatic air patrol "return to base/carrier" repairing
• Actual artillery
• Reclaimation of dead units/buildings/terrain objects
• Construct and forget resourcing(less micromanagement)
• Commander on Battlefield
• Terrain height affects on projectiles.
• Units with multiple weapons
• Etc.

What's more, it also improved many aspects RTS games already had, like the way sea warfare was handled.

Saying TA is a C&C clone is a very narrow-minded and over simplified description, especially considering no RTS to date has managed to have as many features packed in to it. Warzone 2100 came close though.

TA is a RTS clone... period.
Dune 2, the RTS that preceded even C&C had:
[*] Repair of units by construction units, both direct and automated
[*] Automatic air patrol "return to base/carrier" repairing
[*] Actual artillery
[*] Units with multiple weapons
[*] Etc.

Warlords Battlecry also preceded TA in having:
[*] Construct and forget resourcing(less micromanagement)
[*] Commander on Battlefield
[*] Terrain height affects on projectiles.


TA was a hodgepodge of ideas stolen from other RTS's... all these little things are hardly revolutionary, and TA definitely didn't come up with them.

[Briosafreak]

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2002 11:03 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TA is a RTS clone... period.
Dune 2, the RTS that preceded even C&C had:
[*] Repair of units by construction units, both direct and automated
[*] Automatic air patrol "return to base/carrier" repairing
[*] Actual artillery
[*] Units with multiple weapons
[*] Etc.

This is indeed true, but TA did pick up the best in the prvious RTS and added that little plus needed to make a good game.

Is this what BIS is ready to make? At this point, i guess they will produce something more in the lines of the TA spin-off that killed the series. What happened was in the line of what Fergus thinks it would be a success:

-"Hey dude, TA rocks, let`s add a fantasy setting, dragons and bugs and it`s going to be a hit"
-"Great idea dude, let`s hit some waves..."
-"Dohh, why did the game sunk?..."

Just imagine Fergus with a surf board, and he`s no different from the genius that created that sequel...

[Rosh]

Fallout did not jump on the CRPG bandwagon. At the time, the CRPG was more or less dead and Fallout did something different (i.e., not an RTS or an FPS). That Cavedog or Ensemble made an RTS at all instead of something else is, in my opinion, because of the huge success of previous RTS games from Westwood and Blizzard.

Unfortunately by your definition, Fallout jumped on the bandwagon because of earlier CRPGs success. Quite to a point, Fallout jumped on the Wasteland bandwagon. It's fairly poor to say that a game is a bandwagon-jumper n a genre because others were successful in it. I think it's a good example that Cavedog burnt the bandwagon and went ahead of everything else of that time. That's not bandwagon jumping, that's innovation.

All right, I concede the point, but it's moot. I'm just saying that other companies have seen the success of UO and EQ and whatever predecessors have had and decided to make an MMORPG, too.

Well, your whole "bandwagon" stuff is fairly moot when it comes to talking about clones, which was the topic in relation to Bishop going off with Marketing's spiel that for Fallout 3 to do well, it needs to have trendy stuff in it (to likely make it like an IE clone...yet look how "successful IWD2 is).

Congratulations, you have successfully drawn this thread into a tangent.

The company paying PC Gamer to run an ad and PC Gamer (and thus the mainstream gaming community represented by PCG) reviewing the game and taking an interest in it are two different things.

You might want to read what I wrote in response to you again.

But once again, which game can be called the first MMORPG is a moot point.

That's really unrelated, but again by your logic, any game that came after others is a "bandwagon jumper".

Warlords Battlecry also preceded TA in having:
[*] Construct and forget resourcing(less micromanagement)
[*] Commander on Battlefield
[*] Terrain height affects on projectiles.

You might want to check some release dates before you make yourself look even more foolish. The above is a load of crap.

TA was a hodgepodge of ideas stolen from other RTS's... all these little things are hardly revolutionary, and TA definitely didn't come up with them

What does matter is that it did take those ideas, and did well with them with an implementation that retroactively buried Red Alert 2, and came up with more than a few new ones. Ressurection of units? Before TA, that was rare, if used at all. Same with construction with multiple units, construction units aiding with factory class units, radar control, and much more. How about expansiveness, having the first and largest user-created community of modded units, because they were better than the retards at Westwood that purposely hindered 3rd party unit creation so they could make a couple of crap units that most modders could have created in 5 minutes, a little modification, and then fleece the morons by calling it an "expansion". TA also added a lot more expansion ability for it's end-users than any previous RTS, try looking at the user created units and mods sometime. Pretty impressive for a game that is 5 years old and still beats out some modern RTS games. By definition, it's hardly a clone.

Jumping on the bandwagon? Hardly. It took an otherwise stale genre and gave it a kick between the legs, technically far more than StarCraft did.

If you want a definition of a StarCraft clone, and a rather poor one at that, check out this:

http://www.pcgr.com/reviews/strategy/product_1701.asp

There's another one (also featuring a typical StarCraft-esque face on the cover of the box) that was in PC Gamer a while back, and it was the epitome of a StarCraft clone.

[Spazmo]

Unfortunately by your definition, Fallout jumped on the bandwagon because of earlier CRPGs success. Quite to a point, Fallout jumped on the Wasteland bandwagon. It's fairly poor to say that a game is a bandwagon-jumper n a genre because others were successful in it. I think it's a good example that Cavedog burnt the bandwagon and went ahead of everything else of that time. That's not bandwagon jumping, that's innovation.

When Fallout was released, the RPG genre was in a dismal state, comparable to the current state of the adventure game. Then came Interplay, who published Fallout when nobody else was making real RPGs. And while I'm sure that there were some quality RPGs released in that period (just as there are quality adventure games being released now), they were in very small quantities.

TA, however, was released amid a flood of RTS games riding on the coattails of previous Westwood and Blizzard successes. And although it may have been a great game and revultionized the RTS for years to come, the fact remains that it was an RTS released in the time when the RTS was the kind of game that everyone was making. It is my opinion that Cavedog decided to make an RTS because they saw how successful some other companies had been in making that kind of game.

As to the relevance of this whole thing, I'm just answering your claim that emulating someone else's success doesn't make a good and profitable game. But let's not get drawn into a meta-argument here.

[Rosh]

When Fallout was released, the RPG genre was in a dismal state, comparable to the current state of the adventure game. Then came Interplay, who published Fallout when nobody else was making real RPGs. And while I'm sure that there were some quality RPGs released in that period (just as there are quality adventure games being released now), they were in very small quantities.

The above is so full of contradictions, it's difficult to know where to begin.

There were CRPGs developed and released in that time, and the CRPG genre wasn't exactly dried up at that time. In fact, adventure games are in a far worse state now than the CRPG genre was back then.

TA, however, was released amid a flood of RTS games riding on the coattails of previous Westwood and Blizzard successes. And although it may have been a great game and revultionized the RTS for years to come, the fact remains that it was an RTS released in the time when the RTS was the kind of game that everyone was making. It is my opinion that Cavedog decided to make an RTS because they saw how successful some other companies had been in making that kind of game.

That doesn't make TA a bandwagon jumper, considering the RTS genre (and it's roots) has been an active one for a long time, even before Westwood and Blizzard's success. By your logic, Prelude to Darkness is a bandwagon jumper to Baldur's Gate, as would be many others. Hey, Arcanum is a bandwagon-jumper on Baldur's Gate, too!

As to the relevance of this whole thing, I'm just answering your claim that emulating someone else's success doesn't make a good and profitable game. But let's not get drawn into a meta-argument here.

Cloning is different from innovation in a genre. Clones, or borrowing heavily from trendy ideals, often fare poorly. Bandwagon-jumping is "Everyone else is doing this, we should too."

Working in a genre is another matter entirely. It's called competition through innovation, by being improved and different, rather than copying someon for trends like how Bishop has said that Fallout must do to be widely successful.

[Spazmo]

Hmph. Well, I guess you're right. I, uh, gracefully concede the point.

[Guest]

It's a sad comment on the games industry that since TA (and yes, I'm still a TAer even today), there has been ONE RTS which has trod tuly new ground, Homeworld. Well...C&C Generals treads some new tech ground, but gameplay's nothing amazingly different.

Oh, and the most notorious think about FO:T was the bugs, which were made WORSE in many cases by the patch..and that's a refection on IPlay and NOT, NOT on Fallout. When I got the bloody thing working, I found it fun but not exceptional.

As for the Fallout "community", there's a difference between Angry and mewling, pathetic, crackpot morons who'd willing sacrifice their babies to get another cheap crack at the Black isle devs. You're in the second catagory, kids.

I'd be sickened if any FO3 project DID cater to you. While you may despise "mass market", a certain element is needed...PS:T is the best game ever IMO but it's simply not mass market and hence VERY unlikely to ever have a sequel. The trick is to do it without destroying wat makes is Fallout, and I don't think you morons are the right people to do it.

I can live without a FO3 if it means not pandering to you clusterfucks and morons. Fallout is not a religion, it's a game. If I was in the BIS devs place (and I study game design and want to work in the industry), I'd certainly be put off from making a FO3 by the sort of shit you churn out on a daily basis.

Oh and Prov...have I mentioned how much you suck lately?

-An old foe

[ApTyp]

Uhh, neither Fallout nor any of the "Big Three" that were released at the time made a "revolution" in CRPGs, most of the innovations they had were borrowed from another genres. Not that there's anything wrong with that .

And it was Diablo and Baldur's Gates that made CRPGs "hip" and "pop" again, not Fallout, which was (and still is) relatively unknown to the larger game-playing population. That's why there are no Fallout clones around, heh. So I wouldn't credit Fallout as a savior of the genre, even though it probably had the best quality and content in it of all three.

[Rosh]

Allright, it looks like this dipshit is back again. It looks like Dawn Falcon, if the cluelessness is anything to judge by.

It's a sad comment on the games industry that since TA (and yes, I'm still a TAer even today), there has been ONE RTS which has trod tuly new ground, Homeworld. Well...C&C Generals treads some new tech ground, but gameplay's nothing amazingly different.

Yeah, and what makes Homeworld so good? It's not cloned, trendy shit like all the rest and actually had innovative gameplay. Too bad you did't have enough intelligence to think about that before I pointed it out.

Oh, and the most notorious think about FO:T was the bugs, which were made WORSE in many cases by the patch..and that's a refection on IPlay and NOT, NOT on Fallout. When I got the bloody thing working, I found it fun but not exceptional.

No, it does put a negative light on others' perceptions of the Fallout series.

As for the Fallout "community", there's a difference between Angry and mewling, pathetic, crackpot morons who'd willing sacrifice their babies to get another cheap crack at the Black isle devs. You're in the second catagory, kids.

This might be even halfway amusing if it wasn't for the hyperbole.

Of course, if you weren't such a clueless shit, you might understand that the Fallout fans have been jerked around, teased, lied to, etc. for about 4 years. My condolences if you're just retarded or masochistic enough to enjoy that sort of treatment, but the rest of us aren't. So we're fed up with the bullshit.

Who wouldn't be?

I'd be sickened if any FO3 project DID cater to you. While you may despise "mass market", a certain element is needed...PS:T is the best game ever IMO but it's simply not mass market and hence VERY unlikely to ever have a sequel. The trick is to do it without destroying wat makes is Fallout, and I don't think you morons are the right people to do it.

This, coming from the moron with half a clue. PS:T got little press compared to the rest, just like with Fallout.

Mass market only works if you set the trends, not follow them. This is something I don't expect a zit-faced TA modder kid to understand the workings of.

I can live without a FO3 if it means not pandering to you clusterfucks and morons. Fallout is not a religion, it's a game. If I was in the BIS devs place (and I study game design and want to work in the industry), I'd certainly be put off from making a FO3 by the sort of shit you churn out on a daily basis.

First, I'd thank you by not getting into the industry, you've proven you've got very little idea about what you are attempting to talk about. Second, if you had to put up with the lies, chain-jerking, teasing, etc. of what most of the Fallout community press has been through, I'm sure you'd be bitter. Yet, then again you might be that special-ed case that enjoys such treatment, which could explain why you persistently troll.

Oh and Prov...have I mentioned how much you suck lately?

-An old foe

Have I just mentioned that your clueless trolling ass might have just gotten banned?

[Saint_Proverbius]

TA is a RTS clone... period.

RTS is a genre. You don't clone a genre.

Warlords Battlecry also preceded TA in having:
[*] Construct and forget resourcing(less micromanagement)
[*] Commander on Battlefield
[*] Terrain height affects on projectiles.

Total Annihilation was released in 1997.

Warlords Battlecry was released in 1999.

Now, unless Cavedog had a time machine that would take them two years in to the future, I don't think they could have borrowed much from Warlords Battlecry. Most likely, it was the other way around.

Oh, and I don't remember terrain height affecting projectiles in Battlecry either.

As far as Dune 2 having those elements you listed, I don't know. I've never played it. However, judging by your statement that W:BC came out before TA as proof that TA stole ideas from it.. Well, your credibility is in question.

Allright, it looks like this dipshit is back again. It looks like Dawn Falcon, if the cluelessness is anything to judge by.

Yup, that's obviously Dawn Falcon. You can see that 187 IQ in that post.

[Briosafreak]

Yup, that's obviously Dawn Falcon. You can see that 187 IQ in that post.

You mean 1.87, right?

Oh my favorite part:

You're in the second catagory, kids.

Ah, that felt good. Not the "catagory" , beeing called kid. This place sure is an inexplored fountain of youth...

And this pearl:

Oh and Prov...have I mentioned how much you suck lately?

Was that aimed at hurting Saint_Proverbius feelings? man, i bet he`s crying like a baby now...

P.S.: And APTYP, weren`t you supposed to be sick of us all, and leaving the community, and so on, what happened for your sudden return?

[ApTyp]

omigod, he's onto me - a lying hypocritical sonuvabitch from HELL! Now I suppose I should be a good boy and explain my behavior?