Frogboy

What's in a game?  Would it by any other psychological trick cause my neurotransmitters to feel as sweet?

1.There is a game i've been testing since alpha, back then it was called "Dawn of Fantasy", now it has evolved into the most recent game called "Kingdom Wars 2".  As a game that i've put around 1000 hours into(which has had only small impacts on the game), it is coming together.  Would I honestly say that it's worth ANY money?  The only reason I play is because Konstantin (the head developer) has been giving me free keys the whole time(across 2 games too lol!), even was nice enough to hook my girl and our two pals up with them as well to try some off site networking issues.  It's been a bug ridden highly simplistic mess for 990 hours of that 1000, not worth a cent.  It might be worth a few bucks now that EA is trying something "new" with them(essentially taking this indy developer under their wing, giving them access to better resources and using that as a way to quietly regain market share and/or brand recognition no doubt) Do I love the game? yes.  I wouldn't spend more than 5 bucks on it though.  I love it's potential, but not what it is right now.  It could be a business success at this point and still be a failure of a game.  Why is that?

2.I've made this point before about Stardock(and many other companies), metrics are tools of business, not something to be ruled by.  Statistics are only so valuable, overemphasis on these tools leads to predictable failures due to an over reliance on some pet tools.  One cannot simplify leadership to following metrics to avoid dealing with the business aspect of things(if this is indeed the case), as much as said aspect sucks. When you rely so heavily on metrics(or any ONE AMAZEBALLS THING) it will kill your thought diversity, reduce the strength of both your creativity and your leadership ability.  It's all interconnected. Literally.  In your brain. Call it the perils of oversimplification, or whatever you wish.  This point could be made to further apply to our governments and thought processes behind them, yet right now that is irrelevant. Now, if it takes ONLY 90 hours to learn a game, I consider that a failure.  I would say that the systems were moderately simplistic.  I could invest 10,000 hours in that game and still consider it low quality.  It may have a gimmick that I readily admit to myself that is perfect for me, but very few others find it appealing.  Does the gimmick make it a "good game?".  

3.We've all played the gimmicky childish games that last 90 hours.  We may have been fooled for 90 hours, bored, enjoyed ourselves, yet at the end of the day, if it was a lame parlor trick and leaves us mentally/emotionally worse off than before it isn't worth a penny.  Just because we have some chemical reactions to stimuli, that we paid for doesn't equate to good entertainment.  Just choosing to sit down and stare blankly into TV screen static can do that too.  Quality is king.  Not just the quality of the assets.  Not just the quality of the team, Not just the design that somehow makes it all better than the sum of it's parts.  It's the quality of that "something new" feeling that can persist for 1000 hours or more(Sins anyone?).  I wonder if there isn't some sort of yearning for games with enough depth that we can invest 10,000 hours (here is where I lazily borrow a statistic from the book "Outliers" lol!) to achieve enough learning to master a fictional skill.  

The thing is, game design could very well be a furthering of our evolution as a species(suspend thy disbelief for a brief moment).  

Who knows what kind of great things we can do with thought diversity made so incredible as to be influenced by fictional skills seemingly outside of our natural environment.  Skills introduced and crafted by these great game developers, who are somehow trying to look at business metrics to make sense of why their fictional skill creation isn't performing as well as it should.  It seems like they are using the wrong tools for the job. Thanks for a brief moment of disbelief suspension.  Please, tear into this if you dare.  

Cheers

The generous side of me sees the OP as a statement of disapprobation.

The cynical side of me sees a spoiled developer who (apparently) thinks they are entitled to positive reviews.  The twist isn't interesting.

The logical side of me sees a the OP as disingenuous and manipulative.  Voting and aggregation don't work that way (assuming they work at all), nor should they.

I disagree Brad, and I think your position is of course coming from being too close to the situation.  Each gaming experience can and usually is so different.  There are games in my extensive library that I've played 500+ hrs over years of playing and then there are those which barely broke 5hrs (sometimes even less) and anywhere in between.  Sometimes the games with damn near 100hrs were the most frustrating and buggy messes to play, that's just how it goes sometimes.  You buy a game with friends and you try and keep trying to like/find a way to play/fix or workaround bugs etc. etc. and before you know it you've spent 50-100 hrs.  That doesn't mean 'you got your money's worth'.

Because video games are such a personal experience and not just a 'spectator sport' like watching a movie I don't believe your analogy works.  I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion on money spent and if after 90 hrs (hell....especially after 90 hrs) an individual doesn't like/can't get things to work/is frustrated by a videogame I suspect that many out there actually do want to hear that individual's reasons as to why.

Well, one problem with steam is that it's binary. Yes or no. Nominally, 4/10 is a No and a 6/10 is a Yes, even though that's closer than 6 and 10. Furthermore, the analogy breaks down. In a lot of strategy games it may take a very long time to find the flaws (or to try to find the good) for some people. I can't think of a strategy game that I didn't like/dislike relatively quickly, but Skyrim is a game I would personally not recommend even though I spent a lot of time on it, primarily because I spent a lot of time TRYING to find the fun in that game. It'd be more analogous to compare it to not recommending a show or movie because its flaws are not evident until the ending. Off the top of my head, AI (the movie with that Sixth Sense kid) and Yuuki Yuuna is a Hero are things I would personally not recommend because the ending simply ruins them, even if everything before that point was excellent. AI is particularly egregious because they literally could've stopped the movie at a point and had a much better movie, but they decided to continue for no good reason.

Heck, if anything spending a bunch of time trying to find the fun in a game is going to make me more angry because I wasted my time. For a very long time I actually recommended GalCiv 2 to friends even though I personally did not like it because of how money worked in the game. It took only a couple of relatively fast sessions for me to figure out I really didn't like that (in combination with some other things as well). If there's two games of otherwise similar quality I'll view the one that says "no, this game is not for you" more highly than one that says "hey come over here, we might have some fun for you maybe.... nah, never mind".

This also isn't controlling for various user expectations. For example, strategy gamers may expect much MORE than 80 hours into a game. EU4 has an average of 145 hours according to steamspy. Civ 5 has an average of 150. And both those are waaaaayyyyyy above the median (30-40 hours). If you think about it that way, the typical user puts in 30 hours into the game. The hardcore user has to put in a LOT more than that to make the average 150. Beyond Earth has an average of 32 hours and a 50% userscore.

Yet other genres where the amount of gameplay is easier to understand or with NO gameplay, less time is expected. Long Live the Queen, a life sim, has a 95% userscore for a $10 game with only 5 hours on average. On the kinetic novel front (absolutely zero gameplay pretty much), fault milestone one has a 95% steam userscore with a 2 hour long average game time. For a $15 game.

Basing a rating on length or hell, even quality of game mechanics oddly enough, is often insufficient. Magical Diary, another life sim by the same person as LLtQ has only an 89% despite having an extra hour of playtime on average (20% more!) and pretty much indisputably better gameplay. Why? Well, the theme is generally considered not as good as LLtQ. Low tension fem Harry Potter is less interesting than being a princess with a bunch of people out to kill you. I've often said that Master of Orion 2 is the best 4X game, but Alpha Centauri is the best TBS. On the surface that seems ludicrous because both those games are indisputably 4X TBSes. But while MOO2 has better 4X mechanics, AC has better everything else going for it. It does a much better job of making the aliens feel "alien", it does a great job making the planet feel alive and making it a unique setting, it has way better lore. A lot of stuff goes into making a good game.

This also doesn't account for human weirdness in ranking things with "potential". I believe Maro said that people will consistently rate a vanilla creature higher than one with identical stats and an overcosted activated ability like say... 7 mana: regenerate this creature. Even though the latter is strictly better. I mean, it's almost certain they're functionally identical, which would suggest a nearly identical rating, but no, it was actually consistently lower.

I mean... its funny... kind of... at least. Bit sadistic to play something you hate for 90 hours.  sigh.   Anyway, I'm really happy to see all the positive reviews though.  

Got a good review out of me. 9 out of 15 people found it helpful. Giving it a down vote for whatever reason is a dick move honestly. It takes a lot for something to get a down vote in my eyes. Something has to be completely broken or unplayable for me to give a down vote. Either that or it would have to be something purely put together to grab cash and be of obvious shoddy development, which Gal Civ 3 definitely is not. It's a work of art and it's only going to get better. Nothing not to like about the game. Indeed especially if you put 90 hours into it. You can't put 90 hours into something and then not like it. No one would take that seriously.

I couldn't disagree more.  I have been part of both small and larger gaming communities (some in a competitive sense) over the years and the above statement just isn't true.  I as well as many others I've now gotten to know over almost 20yrs in those gaming communities have done exactly that over the years several times over.  We've often invested in new games as a group and sometimes even approaching the 100hr mark you admit to yourself and as the group that 'trying to: like/play/get-to-run' has finally wasted enough time and you shelve it.  Yes many times those games ate up hours of time more than one would think they should have for in the end 'still not working' or 'not being liked'.

Also consider this.  If someone (ie. Steam) had tracked the number of hours I personally had Sins of a Solar Empire or Demigod running (as in the EXE running) and was technically in-game, yet not actually playing due to my community efforts I'm sure it would look like I'd played 100's of hours in each.  Which I have not.

for a lot of veteran strategy gamers "not worth playing" is the expected conclusion after spending enough time with most games

strategy gaming nowadays is like chasing a mirage

everyone has fond memories of some old game that was really fun when they were a novice and didn't know how to find the optimal tactic or play better than an AI.

they remember it having a pretty hefty learning curve, so they will spend dozens of hours learning the systems in these new strategy games that come out on the off chance that they will reproduce that joy, but it's basically impossible because none of the modern games can provide that type of challenge for veterans

this article by Civ 4's designer is still completely relevant today

hmm, you used some time warp for the space continuum there?

I think I finally saw the review being referenced. It's from a well respected member here and I agree with most of his comments other than the weight he puts on them.

The game is still in its early stages and is being refined as we speak. The problems listed aren't a game killer other than the AI issue, which I haven't seen. For the games I've played and including my current one, the AI seems to be responding as well as can be expected at this early stage.  I'm also keeping in mind that the AI will be learning from us as we play. 

In my first game, I had my ass handed to me pretty quickly on beginner.  I responded and have been upping the difficulty as I get a hang of it. I'm up to Suicidal now, but I don't expect Suicidal to stay at the same level of difficulty as it is now.  It'll learn from my games and others.  That's the beauty of the new AI.  I think that part was lost on the review.

IMO, we should keep the game's reasonable potential in mind when writing a review.  Not just look at it as a static entity.

I stand by my positive review.

the amount of psychoanalyss going into a 1 line quip is impressive here.  I was not referring to any particular review or any particular game. 

I simply think it's poor form for someone who's played a game for many many hours to go and take the time to crap on it in the steam reviews. Clearly, not everyone agrees. That's fine.  I'm not looking to convince anyone. However, strangers breathlessly trying to tell me what my motivations were for my post make a fascinating study in projection.

No, I think you might want to consider the order of events.

Your first post on the topic was:

That is a personal attack.

If you don't like criticism, you may consider not being so willing to dish it out.