Beamboom, for the record, I enjoy civil conversation and thanks for taking the time to reply. However, I'm going to enjoy trying to pick apart your arguments :D

Quoting: BeamboomI can usually tell within the first three pages roughly what decade a sci-fi book was written in. Not on the YEAR, but there's a notable progression in how the stories are laid out, the complexity and topics raised and obviously the language. I am pretty sure fans of other genres would agree in regards to their respective genres too.

And in regards to movies: A movie have to be of the really, really excellent kind, the absolute peak level of quality for that time, for me to be able to see past the aging of the movie.

Here you are simply confusing cultural norms for quality. Language changes and so do values. There are universal truths in creative media which are common to humans in all ages. Themes of love, alienation and redemption are universal throughout the history of literature. However, styles change. Word choice and usage as well as preoccupation about cotillions, the plague, the Hellenistic pantheon are matters that come in and out of fashion. It's never a linear progression. How stories are told and what topics are in them change back and forth from generation to generation.

I love Hemingway and he's a break with a lot of convention of his time. A lot of modern authors mimic him. His terse style is (in)famous. Yet some authors, both contemporaneous and modern, reject that entirely and have since his time written in their own styles. Compare it with any other movement in art and you'll find similar developments. There's always people who want to return to the 'basics', others who create increasingly elaborate things and others who try to do a break with the former entirely. I don't disagree that there are identifiable traits for 'periods' in art but it's never something that always changes either for the better or perpetually into something else.

Quoting: BeamboomThe effects, the makeup, the image quality, the camera techniques, directors, screen writers, not to mention the average performance of the actors have improved significantly over the decades. Significantly!

You clearly don't watch enough movies! All those things are false, save for perhaps camera technique. There are unquestionable advances in technology that factor in there but isn't necessarily reflected in the quality of the final product. Though it's tangential to my central argument I think it's important to point out that the *vast* majority of content is still produced unambitious with a single camera or with a three camera setup using the same types of shots and angles as generations ago. CGI is the only thing that's improved and it's been used to disastrous effect in modern movies because most directors (who you claim have improved) use it for everything instead of tiny little touches and alterations. I could rant for days about all specific major actors, directors and screenwriters (cough *Lindelof*) and how they're anything but improved from the greats but that's getting too far away from the primary point I'm making.

All the so-called improvements that you've pointed out did nothing for the second Star Wars trilogy, nor did it do anything for the Total Recall remake nor has it made any film in the last decade more outstanding than stuff like The Searchers, The Killers, Life of Oharu, Chinatown, Blade Runner, The Great Dictator, Stalker, Terminator or Alien to name a few examples. You may argue that that's because individual techniques weren't applied properly but I fail to see how your average actor or director has gotten any better (and would love examples).

Quoting: BeamboomSo even if you took that exact same game mechanics (and let's face it, most advancements are made on the cosmetic areas) - the very same lines of code - and placed them in a modern visual wrapping - the end result will be better!

I get where you're coming from here. But it won't necessarily. A lot of what you praise about Trine and any other new game boils down to art direction. Choosing the color palette, the type of instruments and the general feel of things is a very important part of it. Just because it's newer and flashier doesn't mean it will execute what it's going for better. Sometimes simpler things visually are better because they leave things to the imagination - and that's a powerful technique content creators use even despite sometimes having better tools. Sure something with the latest 3D graphics can do a scene as well or better than older styles but that's not a guarantee made by the technology itself. It's a thing that's determined by the art director and content creator. That's the point I was making with the movie talk. And a lot of this older stuff used their available resources in a way that was so effective that changing it would take away from the intended experience.

I think remakes illustrate this rather well. In video games there's loads of examples both good and bad. Simply updating graphics and sound isn't enough to make something good. It can be but it boils down to mostly the little touches. And that, I think, is independent of technology. I would readily concede that the Resident Evil Remake (haven't played the latest remaster) is superior to the original but the Mega Man X PS remake was inferior. Both are technically better than their originals and have (mostly) just gotten graphical and audio updates with gameplay (mostly) intact but MMX doesn't sound as good and it doesn't look as charming as the detailed original sprites and backgrounds. Translating this into new games: I care a lot more for art direction than shiny things because I know it's not just a simple interchangeable component of a game.

Quoting: BeamboomAnd THIS is the core of the disagreement. The claim that games are primarily just "art".

I never made that claim. They fall under the broad scope of art=creative endeavor but that's all I said. Insofar that it matters for the sake of argument is that technique and how you execute it is independent of technical ability. That's the point I was making. There's different ways of doing things with different mediums and styles.

I would, however reject the argument that a particular medium has more "art" in it than any other. I think that's up to the individual to appreciate depending on how it speaks to him. But that's neither here nor there and certainly not related to the other points I'm making.

Quoting: BeamboomIn games there are plenty objective factors. Ref the recent baluba in regards to Dying Light. What's criticized there, are the OBJECTIVE facts regarding that game.

I'm not a musician, nor a painter. But I got a feeling that the same will apply to even those crafts, where artistry is a much more dominating factor than games. I bet, that a music professor will say that there are objective factors that differs good guitarists from the rest. Or good componists, drummers, vocalists, etc. In OBJECTIVE terms.

This is where we disagree fundamentally. I've been saying that there's no objective facts to criticize for these games. At least none in the sense that you're presenting.

Dying Light has technical problems. The criticism there is about performance and bugs! That is objective because you can measure FPS and draw distance or sound crackling or any other myriad of technical issues. I haven't really seen anyone criticize the storytelling nor the core gameplay mechanics. At least, not as much as aforementioned issues.

Yeah, there definitely objectives standards within art. But those are all, again, technical critiques. A music professor will tell you whether or not your pitch is within range or if your guitar isn't tuned to the right key. Or how to best operate your instrument so that you can get a full range of sound more easily. But he can't very much tell you, in an objective manner, if the type of music you create is good or bad! In fact the history of music is filled with prominent experts on technical stuff criticizing the type of music people create. Beethoven, Berlioz, Sibelius, early jazz, Glass, Dylan and many many others were highly criticized for not conforming to technical norms and styles of the time.

Yeah, you're free to have your opinion on what you like or you don't and I think we both agree on that :)

But I hope that you realize that things aren't as objective as you're arguing they are. I think that implementation of technique is much more important than technique itself. You can criticize performance of a game, any bugs you encounter and certain design decisions as objective fact (in the latter category think of stuff like not being able to jump to a certain height, enemies/traps that instakill you, load times etc) but the rest I don't think is objective at all. How music and graphics are used to create an effect in their particular style, however, is completely subjective. That's because how you react to it is really up to the individual. As with the example of remakes, sometimes they work sometimes they don't. And that's up to every person to decide why.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: edgleyWhat is the performance like now? I played this several months ago and it really struggled to get about 20 FPS.

I bought this after writing this article and have been pretty happy with it thus far. Runs rather well on my 7870 with Mesa. I only get slight FPS dips when it's loading an area but the actual action is continuously smooth. I'm pleasantly surprised with how well the game runs since I've had mixed experiences with unity3d before. The only issue I've had with the game really is trying to remap keys with my gamepad. It's hard wired to expect an xbox 360 controller apparently and even when gamepads are off in the options it tries to behave like one (and thus clash with remapping). But that's minor and I'm happy to play with keyboard and mouse.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This was an interesting read. It's always nice to hear from the people directly involved. I've been following the project for a while and have been excited about its progress.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BeamboomFor me, these games are like purchasing a new car that is a dupe of a car from the 50s. In fact, that comparison is darn good. Modern cars are *objectively* better on every single account. That's why car manufacturers make the cars they make today.

That's a rubbish analogy and here's why: Cars are primarily a means of transportation whereas games are primarily entertainment. Cars are objectively better because we have emission regulations, safety standards, better engineering techniques, computerization and the like. All the technological progress in the world isn't going to make a book or movie plot interesting, music more memorable nor gameplay more fun in of itself. That's because entertainment is a creative endeavour primarily and imagination on the creator's behalf is key there.

Technical progress may enhance the experience but is in no way indicative of a quality product. Taking the argument to the absurd, but logical, extreme: AAA games with the best graphics or the latest 3D blockbuster would therefore be the best games and movies of all time because they have the latest and best techniques and are tailored to a modern audience and equipment.

Nostalgia isn't necessary to enjoy these types of games, though I will concede, it does help at times. What attracts me to these games is that they're fun. It's that simple. You don't need special effects in film to tell a good story and you don't need the latest graphics and physics engines to have great gameplay. It's a stylistic choice to have pixel art and midi-like music and if they're pretty and well polished for what they are, all the better.

It's art and therefore a subjective experience on how each person appreciates it. You don't need to use computer techniques to be an accomplished artist in our times, even though some artists use a lot of digital stuff to create pieces. A lot of art is still made with canvas and paint. Is one intrinsically better than the other? Is the use of real film better than digital in movies? Are digital sounds better than real orchestration? It can't be measured in objective terms nor can you guarantee that people will enjoy one over the other more.

Hopefully that'll make you understand a little of where people like me are coming from. These games aren't like buying the latest and greatest to then suffer through an old TV, if anything it's more like popping in a remastered version of Modern Times or Gone With The Wind in our modern home theater systems.

There's plenty of crappy retro-inspired games too, so trust me, the millions available on phones are a meaningless thing to bring up. I won't buy them just like I wouldn't buy the latest 'photorealistic' annualized FPS game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: VelhoPAs a member of PCMR, i cannot pre-order. It's against the LAW!

BUT, i love city building games. I'll wait for GOL review to decide if i buy it or not.

I'll probably take a look at it when it comes out. That is, if I'm not completely broke :D

The Cities in Motions games had a lot of bugs at launch and my main concern is that it won't be a smooth experience from the start. Paradox Development Studios has more or less been steadily improving in QA and bugfixing but the other studios that publish under the Paradox Interactive brand are a little hit or miss. This is a Unity game so performance might also be a concern.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: salsadoomI wish they wouldn't make linux ports a stretch goal. I'm not going to give you a red cent for a game I couldn't play. So either tell me I'll get to play it, or don't expect anything from me. I mean, all it does it make me wait until the linux port is reached before I'm willing to fund anything. Especially since its Unity, its not a hard port. You want my money then just commit to it from the get go.

I wish they wouldn't make Linux a stretch goal either but I think you overestimate how easy Unity is. A lot of devs end up with a lot more trouble than they anticipated because they think that Unity will do all the work. This is why we get a lot of delayed releases on Unity games.

At any rate, you're not giving money to them when you pledge. It's the promise of money. Kickstarter only charges you if and when the campaign is successful (in this case 28 more days to go). I ended up backing the project in a moment of weakness but will definitely withdraw my pledge if it doesn't meet its stretch goal for Linux support. I only hope that the Linux port, if it comes, isn't delayed for months on end as has happened with other kickstarters.

Quoting: KristianUsually "spiritual successor" is used about unlicensed works, but in this case they have licensed everything but the Ultima" name from EA.

It's cool that EA is allowing this to happen. Maybe they are tired of being evil? ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Silent Hunter (4? 5?) would be lovely but it seems too niche and too old to be probable. Then again, Aspyr did port Indigo Prophecy. I have no plausible guesses but would love if either Feral or Aspyr brought over Homeworld Remastered.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's been frustrating to wait for this one. Though it was a kickstarter pledge that it would come to Linux, it's been over a year since the game came out on other platforms. Not only that but they released on iOS and android which weren't even targets of the crowdfunding months ago. Their excuse has been that it's all depended on a single programmer to do everything but I would have liked clear communication about their priorities and progress. Getting only hints of potential progress every couple of months while they clearly are busy focusing on other things is unacceptable.

I'm glad I didn't back this game and I'll wait until it's deeply discounted before getting this if it does come out soon.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Xpanderi mostly agree with you on unity and terrible performance.
but there are some that are made properly.. like Interstellar Marines which runs fairly good
Wasteland 2, Shadowrun and Cities in Motion 2

I'm not sure that CiM2 runs as well as it could and Wasteland 2 took a few patches to optimize things.

The performance issues are a pain but it's not like the game is unplayable most of the time. The devs do prioritize performance and have in the past fixed things with patches (usually in a few days of a big update). Given that they updated to a new version of the engine (and that unity sucks) it's regrettable but understandable that there's kinks to work out. But yeah, they should do better. Or use a better engine.

But hey, at least it's not as bad as with Rust where an update to a new Unity version has made it unplayable for Linux users.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Looks interesting and I gave it a thumbs up on greenlight. I don't really have any spare cash to spare to fund anything at the moment, sadly.

View this comment - View article - View full comments