First off, I’ve decided to go with a bi-monthly update on the strip; most likely updating the second and last week of the month.
Also, since I’ve been putting this off for a bit, I’d finally like to get some of this down. Recently there was an article in PC Gamer about some conference of people trying to find some way to make computer games more accessible. One of their ideas is setting minimum standards for requirements in order to run all those pretty graphics. It got me thinking though, especially given that I’ve found myself somewhat disinterested in newer games, about what makes a good game. The following is of course, going to remain unfinised and unpolished for awhile. My main goal is to just get down my thoughts so that I can come back and polish it up into something useful.
One of the things that struck me to be rather lacking in games these days is the sense of a good narrative structure. Sure pretty graphics and fancy ai’s are nice, but what good are they if I don’t care about the game beyond blowing things up? Another thing that struck me about this is that if games are going to be thought of as an art form than pretty graphics and advanced ways to kill things are not going to cut it without trying to have some sort of meaning.
The other thing I’ve been thinking is each of the separate genres. What exactly do I find fault with these genres and what do they do well? On top of that, what is it of games that I do like that make them so and what don’t?
RTS: One of the biggest problems I find myself with rts games is the fact that, for being a strategy game, is how effective brute force is. I continually find myself using the simple strategy of an effective defensive position followed by building the largest army I can and then laying down waste to anything in my path. Half the time even if the mission is designed to force you to not brute force it I still do it anyways just on general principle that I can. Plus, once you give me artillery I just tend to sit back and watch things go boom.