I was playing what many consider a stinker of an RPG. That''s right, Crusaders of Might and Magic. I have become addicted to it''s little quirks and cavern/canyon shaped maps not because of the simplicity, but because of a lot of little details that were added. For instance, everybody in the game has something to say unless they want to kill you. Although poorly executed in this instance (how many guys named Kevin or whatever are there?) it is a nice touch to have in a game as opposed to the bricks that exists in some other games. Sure a lot of games have phrases for people to say, but if they were to go beyond the few phrases and add emotional levels behind it - like "I''m busy", "Go away", and "Stop pestering me or I''ll call the guards" ala Warcraft II, things would be a bit more interactive. Another small addition to the game that makes me want to see the next level just to see what little insites they added are the sunbeams that poke throught he fog here and there in the jungle level. If they would have spent the time to add some vines on the canyon wall, a few clumps of bushes, critters, and some atmospheric sound, the place would take on a whole new level of immersion. Alone, the sunbeams were a first, and the tress looked among the best I''ve seen in a game, but they just didn''t take it far enough, but not deterred, I want to see what other inovations they''ve added to the other maps (not much in the ''glacier'' map aside from the ice brides, stalctites and stalagmites, there wasn''t a lot aside from a torch on an ice ledge or two. The addition of critters, atmospheric sound, and some blowing snow would have made the level - the fog affect was well used, as it was for the jungle level. The ''town'' areas in the canyons had nice additions of gardens and other farmish scenery, but no critters. I also like the fights as I am surprised by the monster AI. If multiple monsters attack, one will rush you to keep you busy while his buds flank or encircle you. Sometimes they won''t but a lot of the times they will so I am always suprised by them. The best part of fights are finding that the monster actually dropped the weapon he/she/it was using on you. A rarity. Quite the refresher from the dungeon hack games that involve the monster dropping a couch or some other obscene item that he/she/it gave no indication of carrying. If the monster in crusader''s is carrying a magic sword, he is using it against you. That is so awesome. I could keep going, and have, on the little things I find in Crusaders of MM that keep the game interesting from a design point of view, but for $8-10 you can find out for yourself . Just remember, that when a game is written off as a stinker, it still has some innovations that are worth noting. I have heard that Daiktana is the exception to this, but I''ll wait until it hits the $10 rack at the local computer megastore.

Usually it comes down to money, which equates to time, so the publisher wants a game out for minimal money and minimal time. If Crusaders had another 6 mo they could have added a lot plus more of the suggestions above. I wonder if I have a post mortem for Crusaders sitting around.

I am not sure how level lords do maps, but I usually do any map I am working on in passes, with each pass adding details and testing ideas out. My maps never make it off my computer, but that is besides the point. It may be my approach to adding little details that is wrong, but who knows.

Bad games relate to unfamiliar look and feel - people expected Crusaders to be an RPG Tomb Raider type deal with Wolfenstein/Doom control keys. The maps are Tomb Raider-ish but don''t emphasize jumping around (love that, I bite at the jumping level stuff) and emphasize enemy tunneling - hack your way through this cluster of enemies to the next cluster, yet paced. All RTS'' appear to be clones of Dune 2, all FPS seem to be clones of Quake (body count and inovation is not enough to consider to be Doom clones), all space shooters appear to be clones of X-wing (the original one, in line art 3D), and all RPGs seem to be clones of Diablo in some manner. I am not sure about flight sims as they are judged as a different breed all together.

I do agree there. The small inovative things really keep me interested in games. I thought D2 bit since there wasn''t a lot of inovation other than the chained maps, but that really wasn''t revolutionary as much as it was evolutionary. The only thing that sets apart the recent batch of FPS is their team ai, so to speak. The only thing that sets aside current RTS are their graphics (not much else).

Most of the new stuff adds 10 or so different things to Dune 2 and not much else. What sets aside games to me are adding 10-20 new small details to the game and inovating the genre in a new way. That is risky.

Way risky. When done half way - ala Crusaders - you see your little details being chipped away and your software gets the shaft. The details are wasted on the effort. So that is why I like to pick up shafted games and see what isn''t bad about them. A lot of innovative people get squashed in the mush to get the game done but a few of them make their way in. Other games that were shafted yet had innovations in them include SDOE (the OpenPlane is good, but could be better), Eradicator (killed by it''s 320x200 graphics limitations), Whiplash (just plain fun rally style car racing, not sure if it was squashed or not), and if I were at home, I''d have a good size list.

This year, I find myself looking at games from a research point of view with fun mixed in. I like to guess how stuff was done in hopes of one day dulpicating them.

Gaming progress has always, and will always be 90% evolutionary and 10% revolutionary (or some heavily biased percentage in that ball park) And that isn''t JUST because it''s the safe way. It''s also the most practical way. The main reason every new game isn''t revolutionary is because to create a truly revolutionary game you start from scratch and create something so new you have to learn how to do everything as you go. John Carmack didn''t have a book to tell him how to create a first person perspective 3D graphics engine that was fast enough to create a playable game with. The first RTS developer didn''t have any guidelines on how to handle A strategy oriented environment in real time. What the caveats, strengths, and weaknesses of such a play environment provided. These revolutionary aspects of gaming have to be learned, explored, and experimented with. That takes an enormous amount of time and effort, and to spend that much time and effort on every single game you make is not financially feasible.

And I would hardly consider Might & Magic, the Infinity engine games, and Squaresofts RPGs to be Diablo cones in even the vaguest sense of the word. (I actually heard one site call Diablo II a Nox clone. Needless to say, they''re views and opinions don''t hold much water with me)

Games will continue to steadily, albeit sometimes slowly, evolve and expand, with only the rare and exceptional revolutionary game appearing. The fact that it has evolved instead of redefined is not a direct indicator of the quality of that game. There is plenty of room for evolution in all the genres even as they stand today. Expansion of detail, intricacy, interaction, and player involved is almost always an evolutionary process. Rome wasn''t built in a day, the world wasn''t created in a day, and games do not innovate entire genres in a day.

quote: Original post by pacman
Think Starfox was the first game like it on the SNES? Think again. A game called Axely (spelling?) had the same perspetive and premise. It didn''t do well.

The same perspective and premise? I say they were quite different. Axelay (that''s how to spell it) had sprite graphics and some cool mode7-effects, while Starfox was in true 3d with flat-shaded polygons. Besides, Axelay did pretty good, at least where I live.

Wow, is this off-topic or what. But I just had to correct these mistakes.

The question then becomes, what is considered a new idea? You can go to either extreme. No games have any ideas that are truly new, or every game has some ideas that are indeed new. Example...

The Protoss race in Starcraft is a new idea cause no other game has Protoss in it.

Or,

Starcraft is just another RTS that focuses on unit building and attacking your opponent, so there is nothing notably new about it.

However, with respect to Starcraft, one rather notable difference between it and all other RTS games that I know of is the stark differences between the three races that you play throughout the game. In most RTS games, each side has very similar units with some rare exceptions. In Starcraft, not only were the units of each race significantly different from each other in terms of abilities, strengths, and weaknesses, but the management systems used by each race were notably different also. They all used the same two resources, but each had different unit and building maintainance systems. On the surface, this doesn''t seem like anything significantly new or noticably different from other RTS games, but it is a definite evolution of the genre.

To that end...

The System Shocks, Thief games, and Deus Ex all provide evolutionary styles of gameplay to the generic First Person Shooter environment.

The relatively recent MMORPG games all provide their own personal touch to this new and unarguably immature genre. Given the definite lackings of the currently available games, this RPG sub-genre can only get better with time.

I''ll admit the recent influx of focused RPGs has been tapping into the unfilled demand that was present more then innovating or evolving, but now that the viability of the genre has furhter proven itself it''s future is looking pretty good to me with a new game coming from the very experienced SSI, a new Wizardry in the works, and several new games from Bioware (BG2 and NWN) that could potentially set new standards for depth of quests and the amount of control given to the player (in reference to each game respectively)

More and more games these days are giving the players free reign to explore their own design talents within the game they provide. ID Software has been the pioneer of this game feature with their entire Quake series, and that series has prospered well beyond the length of their releases due to the steady infusion of player made mods. Other companies have seen the value of this design model and it''s quickly becoming a required feature instead of a bonus. Hell, Bioware''s number 1 goal with it''s NWN game is to give even the most casual of gamer the ability to create his own little worlds for others to enjoy.

That is the evolution of gaming, Some of what people already know with something new added on. You only need to rebuild the wheel when it no longer suits the purpose at hand (From the wagon wheel to the solid rubber tire to the bias ply tire to the tubeless radial) Keep what works and expand, modify, or redesign what no longer suits the current goal. That''s how games (or any software for that matter) are released in a timely enough fashion to keep companies profitable enough to get the next game out the door. If you can''t see the new things the latest games give us, you''re just being too picky about what is and isn''t new.