Age of Conan

Post by **linflas** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:43 pm

o m f g . . . a directx 10 game.

gameplay interview :
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php? ... mv&pl=game

more trailers below in the same page.
i suggest the developers diary #1 (HD version if you can).

mikko · Post by **mikko** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:26 pm

Looks like a kinda simple hack and slash to me. Not exactly my kind of a game.

I think that for me Crysis will be "the DX10 game"..

http://www.crytek.com/technology/index.php?sx=eng2
http://www.crysis-online.com/

Post by **Gambit37** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:26 pm

Looks pretty.... vacant. The sword fighting looks really shit too.

I'm not really persuaded by good graphics any more. DX10 can kiss my ass.

Sabreman · Post by **Sabreman** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:08 am

In my opinion aesthetically speaking, games never improved visually beyond the 16-bit days. I like pixels, I like seeing how graphics are made up. It's one of the things that defines videogames for me, one of the things that makes it a unique form of art or entertainment. The more games move towards a photorealistic representation, the less interested I become.

This is the main reason I don't own a 360, and have no intention whatsoever of buying a PS3. Aside from visual puffery they aren't offering me anything more than I can get either for free on the PC (thanks to the freeware and homebrew community), or revisit on previous generations of machines.

Post by **linflas** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:36 am

i agree with all of you (especially sabreman) but i can't resist to hack and slash games...

Parallax · Post by **Parallax** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:25 am

Well, it's a game in development, right? I assume (or rather, I hope!) that by the time it reaches the distribution point there will be more to it than clobbering clones upside the head with a rusty machete. I mean, there should be a shiny machete, at the least...

Tom Hatfield · Post by **Tom Hatfield** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:31 pm

Psh. They're touting the graphics and nothing else. If a DX10 game is good, it's because the developers knew how to use the API. Using the buzz-acronym "DX10" fifteen times in a sentence means absolutely nothing. Crysis is not going to rock because it looks good. It's going to rock because they put a massive amount of work into making it a good game, and then they slapped some awesome visuals on top of it.

linflas, you have experienced Dark Messiah, yes? When I first played it, it was all kinds of buggy, and I just couldn't get into the gameplay, but I gave it another chance after patching it, and it grew on me. I especially enjoyed the House of Ashes. Stealth kills left and right, and firetrap is actually a useful spell, despite its name.

Post by **Sophia** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:23 pm

It's obvious the prevailing view around here, as we're all still quite eager fans of a game that offers much more gameplay than graphics, by modern standards.

It's a shame the industry at large is so backwards.

Post by **linflas** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:25 pm

tom, i haven't patched Dark Messiah and haven't completed it yet because i didn't have time for it and honestly forgot about it ! but thanks to you, i'm going back into

Post by **Gambit37** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:09 pm

Sophia wrote:It's a shame the industry at large is so backwards.

I agree, though I would buy a PS3 for LittleBigPlanet

It just looks so much fun.

I don't play many games now, especially not new ones as my PC simply isn't up to it. When I eventually upgrade I'm looking forward to getting Half Life Episodes 1 and 2 as I think Valve are expert craftsman and build a compelling world.

As a fan of the Thief series, I'm also looking forward to Assassin's Creed, though will that be console only?

Tomb Raider Anniversary I'll buy purely 'cos I'm a sucker for Lara and the whole series, but I can already see that it doesn't offer anything innovative and in trying to make it look more realistic they've actually made it look, well, boring.

I bought an older budget game recently, Beyond Good and Evil, which got great reviews. Haven't played it yet, but looking forward to that one.

Parallax · Post by **Parallax** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:21 pm

Sophia wrote:It's a shame the industry at large is so backwards.

How so? As far as I can tell, the video game industry is following the same progression as the movie industry. From its humble beginnings when technology limited what could be accomplished, through a golden age of creativity and artistic vision that produced masterpieces, to the money-driven paradigm that stiffles creativity and rewards bland, unimaginative re-creating of what has already been done before, only with a bigger special-effect budget.

Unless you consider the movie industry to be backwards as well? But these are only the products of market forces. These games are what most people want and are willing to pay for, the same way braindead movies with car chases, explosions and a sex scene are what most people want to pay to watch.

This is capitalism. It's the triumph of style over substance, where anything that can be suspected of a modicum of intelligence is relegated to obscurity because the majority does not want to be challenged. The majority wants to be entertained.

Commercial movies and commercial games have in common that they are so expensive to produce that they pretty much have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to make a profit. Maybe the initial mistake was to assume that video game companies exist to produce interesting, innovative and challenging games. Companies, all companies, exist for one reason only: to make money. The industry could not be any more forward.

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:34 pm

Parallax wrote:the majority does not want to be challenged

I dont think this is true, think it is more to do with if money over the actual product is the consideration, then any risky strategy (potential for less people being interested) or any development that sinks money for no monetery gain (more time and effort into testing, more time into consturucting story elements or gameplay) it will receive opposition. There is no point in making a challenging film
if it is not guaranteed to make money as much as a brainless one for the effort, no point in adding extra frills that don't equate to sales (graphics look pretty and get instant sales as thta is all that can be seen from quick demos, in depth gameplay isn't somehtign you can sell nor will aid initial sales, only word of mouth afterwards)

It is the gamble of how low a level can the baseline be before a product will not get accepted and you lose money rather than draw in the acceptable standard money, since many people will still buy the game even if it is the same as alot (sicne they have to buy it to try it since alot of reviews can be biased).

The same seems to be true of 'non-essential' services in other industries, most notably customer care - but that is a digression outwith the games discussion!

Edit: Sorry, the above kinda agrees with your last paragraph Parallax, just I think 'dont' want to be challeneged' is actually 'will accept not to be challenged' - hence why you can make a lowest common denominator film and make money.

I also disagree companies exist soley to make money. Companies can be formed for many reasons, to be profitable but also to provide a service. When a company becomes a corporation, thne by the very legality of its charter then yes, it is mandated it has to make a profit for it's shareholders above everything else. It is a sad state of affairs when the mechanisms are so entrenched that yes, to do anythign acrues so much cost to stiffle mainstream creativity now.

Post by **Sophia** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:11 pm

Parallax wrote:But these are only the products of market forces. These games are what most people want and are willing to pay for, the same way braindead movies with car chases, explosions and a sex scene are what most people want to pay to watch.

I see your point, but I don't think it's entirely so simple.

I don't think it's fair to say that games like what you and I are talking about are what "people" want, when consoles like the Nintendo Wii that offer a different paradigm are flying off the shelves.

The game playing public, by and large, is a very narrow group: mostly young males. Others (females, older adults, etc.) are simply not considered. The game companies conclude that they don't play games, so no games are made that might appeal to them, so they don't buy any games, so the game companies conclude that they don't play games, and so on.

Nintendo has tried to change this, by coming out with a totally different design philosophy. You can see this in the DS and in later GameCube games, but, of course, the high point of this is the Wii.

Parallax wrote:The majority wants to be entertained.

I agree.

And that's why the rather dull, repetitive concepts that are passing for games aren't appealing to the "majority" in the sense of the majority of the population-- they're not entertaining to them.

Executives from Nintendo of Japan have pointed out that if Tetris were a new idea today, it wouldn't get published.

Post by **Gambit37** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:24 pm

Sophia wrote:Executives from Nintendo of Japan have pointed out that if Tetris were a new idea today, it wouldn't get published.

Thus proving the insanity of the situation. I really need to grow up so I don't have to think about (and get annoyed about) this stuff anymore....

Sabreman · Post by **Sabreman** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:26 pm

Tetris would come out on the DS at least. Either that or it would permeate into the homebrew scene so strongly that some big corporation would gobble it up, produce a visually flashier version and stick a £30 price tag on it.

Yes, I'm bitter about Every Extend Extra.