Computer games.

Because it's a simulation game and those type of things matter in a simulation game, especially when they've had years to correct it and haven't done
cd3.jpg
 

Elite: Dangerous is far better (despite being much younger). I have had a go on the SC combat, and it is very, very basic. No sense of inertia or momentum.

This, really.

It is a shame that SC increasingly looks like both a massive con and dead (if for the genre and because it will always be the stick that Kickstarter-funded games are beat with), but it should not be forgotten that even the best Chris Roberts game (Starlancer) was about 5% of the game that Frontier was. By the time SC is released (if it ever gets released, that is) Elite will be on planetary landings, multi-crewed ships, player factions etc; and EVE will probably have taken over the souls of a million more people.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_game#Simulation

Simulation games are more realistic than arcade games, with the emphasis being more on realism than on how fun the game is to pick up and play. A classical example of the difference has been Konami's fast-paced arcade style International Superstar Soccer (now Pro Evolution Soccer) vs EA Sports' more sedate and serious annual FIFA games. Simulation games tend to be slower and more accurate while arcade games tend to be fast and can have all kinds of ad-hoc rules and ideas thrown in, especially pre-2000. For example NBA Jam had only two players on each team and there was a NES game where every bicycle kick performed no matter where in the field it was made the screen flash and ended up as a goal.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_game#Simulation

Simulation games are more realistic than arcade games, with the emphasis being more on realism than on how fun the game is to pick up and play. A classical example of the difference has been Konami's fast-paced arcade style International Superstar Soccer (now Pro Evolution Soccer) vs EA Sports' more sedate and serious annual FIFA games. Simulation games tend to be slower and more accurate while arcade games tend to be fast and can have all kinds of ad-hoc rules and ideas thrown in, especially pre-2000. For example NBA Jam had only two players on each team and there was a NES game where every bicycle kick performed no matter where in the field it was made the screen flash and ended up as a goal.

Brilliant! Can I ask first... did you edit Wiki last night? ;-)
 
Not at all

Just Googled that this morning to check if I was off point or not

I feel partially vindicated somewhat

Fair enough. I just never thought controlling people as a simulation. It always seems to me that those sort of games are when you control the equipment that is as realistic as possible to real life for an actual person to control.
 
The fact is FIFA is all about recreating an authentic match day experience, rather than making a fun arcadey experience

It is more of a simulation than it is anything else, and when you grade it on that criteria not being able to change your captain during the match is something that becomes a valid criticism. It's also a complete and utter nit pick as well, I make no bones about that whatsoever
 

My mate (IT nerd) has spent $100 backing the game then another $7-800 on ships and he viciously defends this game.

The problem is for people like me, who love a good space game, I am not going to be able to compete from day 1 as I am unwilling to spend extra money to get to end game immediately.

People often forget there is a game to be played, and get fixated with getting to level 100 or paying to get into the biggest ship in the game ASAP.

Totally, pay to win ruins games, the moment a cash shop is introduced there's always trepidation.

I'm not a big fan of P2P games generally, but I do like the concept of Kickstarter (and have back a couple of projects), though I do feel it is too open for abuse. In this case though I quite like how it is working. Everyone doesn't always need to start on the same level. Asymettrical balance can be as much fun as symettrical. Look at games like CK2 and EU4. You can start off a a great Empire or a tiny Count. The one difference is that everyone has that choice in those games. I think if there was a few options to start with a bigger ship for all, then more opportunities for P2Pers then that would be ok. Or some way to help protect the smaller ships be somewhat protected at the start.
 
I'm not a big fan of P2P games generally, but I do like the concept of Kickstarter (and have back a couple of projects), though I do feel it is too open for abuse. In this case though I quite like how it is working. Everyone doesn't always need to start on the same level. Asymettrical balance can be as much fun as symettrical. Look at games like CK2 and EU4. You can start off a a great Empire or a tiny Count. The one difference is that everyone has that choice in those games. I think if there was a few options to start with a bigger ship for all, then more opportunities for P2Pers then that would be ok. Or some way to help protect the smaller ships be somewhat protected at the start.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zackdangerbrown/potato-salad
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top