MOO3 finished!

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by MacLeod:
As Pheonix-D pointed out, problems with copy prot schemes aren't limited to the stupid, or to those with poor system configs (or to pirates for that matter), they WILL screw all of us at least once as time goes on, give it time, they'll get you too![/QB]

Doubtful. I've got over 100 CD-Rom based games sitting in my room right now, and not one of them has ever caused me problems due to copy-protection.

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MacLeod:
As Pheonix-D pointed out, problems with copy prot schemes aren't limited to the stupid, or to those with poor system configs (or to pirates for that matter), they WILL screw all of us at least once as time goes on, give it time, they'll get you too!

Doubtful. I've got over 100 CD-Rom based games sitting in my room right now, and not one of them has ever caused me problems due to copy-protection.[/QB]

---

How many have copy protection schemes?
Copy Protection schemers are looking more and more outside the CD to determine if their CD is 'legit' or not. Last time I checked (admittedly, about 6 months ago), SecuROM refused to allow it's games to run on a wide variety of CD burners or on systems featuring certain burning software and *gasp* virtual drives.

My cynical dispositions are telling me this is the beginning of a trend. Also, please note the Last part of the sentence you quoted wasn't entirely serious.

[ January 26, 2003, 04:56: Message edited by: MacLeod ]

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Yes, we all did, and it didn't crash at all. Bear in mind that I have no idea what you mean by "crashed a lot". I'd look at a game that crashed once an hour as being perfectly stable, although a little bit annoyning. It's only when crashes start to occur every ten or fifteen minutes that it gets aggravating.

We seem to have different standards, I expect my games to run for several hours on end (assuming I don't Alt Tab excessively or have any invasive programs running in background). Almost all my games meet this standard of mine.

I personally would have to describe once an hour as pretty unstable, especially since you may lose at least 15 minutes of gameplay since your Last save (and I've had a few games that didn't even have a save).

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Edit: I've read the "DO NOT BUY Civ 3" thread, and basically, it comes down to Atrocities complaining that he only got a month's worth of play out of a game. If you get a month out of any game before getting tired of it, then I would think it's up there as one of the best of all time.

In that case it would be more economical to Subscribe to a porn site for $10-$15 a month than shell out $50 for a game. I expect at least 2 months, but 3 is what I'd rate a good game. Truly great games Last years.

I've played UO for 5 years, and back in my younger days Doom, and it's extreme editability Lasted me about 3. SE is also another long Laster, though I'm too tired to remember how long ago it has been since I started playing SEIII.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by MacLeod:
I personally would have to describe once an hour as pretty unstable, especially since you may lose at least 15 minutes of gameplay since your Last save (and I've had a few games that didn't even have a save).

Like anything else you do on a computer, you should be saving no less than every five to ten minutes. If it's word processing, I save every thirty seconds.

I expect at least 2 months, but 3 is what I'd rate a good game. Truly great games Last years.

I expect no more than a week of play from a game that is a true classic, because that's all the time one can spend on a game if you wish to play more than one a month.

I've played UO for 5 years, and back in my younger days Doom, and it's extreme editability Lasted me about 3. SE is also another long Laster, though I'm too tired to remember how long ago it has been since I started playing SEIII.

Sure, a really great game gets more play time, but that doesn't make one that only Lasts a weekend a bad game, just a normal length game.

[Phoenix-D]

"Like anything else you do on a computer, you should be saving no less than every five to ten minutes. If it's word processing, I save every thirty seconds."

Some programs don't -let- you save this frequent, or become unstable if you do. And frankly one crash per hour is pretty bad. Most games I've played do -far- better than that. Metroid on the gamecube has crashed about as much as some of the better PC games I've played. Twice, and I've played it for twelve hours.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

One crash is too often.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
One crash is too often.

So you've never had an RCE from SE4?

[ZeroAdunn]

I wouldn't call it substandard, if we tested till all bugs were gone on all machines, games would never get released.

See that is the problem these days, computer technology has diverged so much, and evolved so quickly, all systems are just way too varied.

[Dobian]

Stability: I consider a game to be very stable if it crashes once for every ten hours I put into it. And I have a lot of games that meet this standard (including SE4 ).

Value: I picked up Might and Magic 4-8 a year ago for a grand total of 11 bucks. To date, I've logged somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 hours on MM6-MM8. Now that's value.

[couslee]

" The game is still better than it's immediate predecessor SMAC, which has the ridiculous unit design mechanism that allows you to kill attackers armed with the best weapons by putting better armour on you units. "

Oh horsepucky. I played SMAC for a couple of years. Civ3 Lasted about 2 games before getting deleted. And yea, gee, it's amazing that if you put your best armor on your units, you have a greater chance of defeating an attacker.

You love Civ3, that is apparent, I hated it. so what. Opinions are like a**holes. every has their own, and it's usually full of crap.

When you talk about value in a game, value in an item is based on a standard that people are use to. A good meal at a nice restaruant can cost $20 a plate, and your done eating in 30-60 minutes. If you compare that to a $20 game you play for a whole day, then the meal looks like a bad value and the game looks like a good value. That, is comparing apples to oranges and is no basis for comparison. $20 for a one day game is poor. $20 for a tasty meal is not. Stick with apples and apples and leave the other fruit in the fridge.
Customers have come to expect games, esp in the 4x genre', to have months and months of enjoyment. If the game playability is bad because of bugs, balancing issues, hardware issues, ect to the point it is not worth the effort loading up, and you just bought the game, it's not a good value.
You talk about playing several new games a month. At $45-50 a copy for new games, you must have an unlimited game budget. Must be nice. I, and the majority of gamers do not have that much money to burn. We expect value (meaning dollar spent, per game hour enjoyed, per industry standard). And lately, most games have fallen short of that mark. imnsho

[ January 26, 2003, 12:15: Message edited by: couslee ]