10 / 100 / 1000 year games

[AdmiralZeech]

One of the wonderful things about video games is how fast paced the industry is. Gajillions of new games are released every year, technology improves at a breakneck pace, we see iteration and innovation every day, etc etc blah.

However, for competitive games, the current industry model kinda sucks. There's no time for games to be refined and balanced, before the sequel comes out that breaks everything again. And inevitably, even if the sequel is inferior, it usually splits the community, destroys any momentum, and signals the slow death of the better, original game.

In video games, there's a number of games which i call "Ten year games", that is, competitive games that have survived for more than a decade and still have a reasonable community, and haven't been "solved" yet:
Street Fighter 2 Super Turbo, King of Fighters 98 & 2002, Starcraft Brood War, Counterstrike (Is the original still played?), Quake 3 (in the form of Quake Arena? How similar is it?)
I'm mostly familiar with fighting games, hence more certainty in my examples.
These games have taken a bit of a hit from sequels and competitors, but still managed to keep going in some limited way. (eg. SF2 survived SF3, but didn't really survive SF4, despite SF4 being rather disliked by everyone, even its own players. But it's still played here and there.)

Of course, even these 10 year games pale in comparison to 100 year (eg. Poker) and 1000 year (eg. Chess, Go) games.

Professionals play these games for a lifetime and never master it, whereas for most video games, top players usually "break" the game and "solve" the optimal / overpowered strategies pretty quickly.


The sad thing is, I doubt any video games will ever reach 100 or 1000 year status. One the one hand, apart from me, probably very few players even want/care about such a thing. And adding to that, the industry itself isn't structured to cater for it. Finally we're all gonna die from nuclear war / global warming / alien invasion / meteor strike / mass uprisings / etc in a few decades anyways so it's all moot.

I vaguely recall hearing that the Sth Koreans were going to develop their own clone of Brood War when SC2 came out and Blizzard started to exert iron control over broadcast rights and stuff, but I can't even find it on google right now so it probably never went anywhere.

But that kind of thing is probably the closest we'll get:
- Pick a good competitive game
- Make an open source clone (or at least the game rules should be free from ownership)
- Ensure that graphics is seperated from gameplay. (Engine is seperated from game rules.)
--> This means that bugs/exploits/engine tricks are either promoted to real features or patched away.
- Constantly refine the gameplay, but as it matures, only in very baby steps, and only when it's critically needed.
- Keep the gameplay mostly static and regularly replace/improve the engine & graphics. Port to other platforms as necessary.

That's the only model I can see for a true "100 year" video game - it needs to keep up with technology, it needs to allow different implementations (just like how there are many computer chess games, etc) and it needs to be "pure" - free from engine-specific glitches and tricks.

So I guess the winner is.... TA Spring? (hahahahaha....sorry.)

But thinking about it, maybe DoTA is on its way... since it started as a mod and has now spawned a bunch of fairly similar clones? If it keeps being popular, perhaps one day rulesets will converge and mature? Or maybe DoTA3 or LoL2 will come along and wreck everything and kill the genre, who knows.

This concludes my rant.

Edit: This post relates to FAF because the "Forever" part of the title expresses a desire to be a 1000 year game

[Plasma_Wolf]

I think it's a bit hard to talk about 1000 year games or even 1000 year games in an industry that only exists for about 30 years and an RTS industry that has picked up just 20 years ago...

I think there would be a 1000 year game industry (FPS) but it'd be riddled with useless sequels and bad clones. The difference is that a popular series will continue to sell good, no matter how much it starts to suck.

You don't have this for a single game: the game must be good from the start, always have potential to grow (in popularity and gameplay), only then will people be interested in it. If you're going to make a sequel of that game, you either kill off the original (so the sequel must be at least as good in every aspect) or the sequel will suck, in which case you should go back to fully supporting the original immediately. Neither of these two things have ever happened in the industry.

[LittleInferno]

Everything you say in relation to lack of investment at the level of for competitive games and the current industry model kinda sucks really true, we need to get back to old times for that special taste on some memorable games.

I do not think the industry is like before unfortunately.

It is all a question of money, just the amount off money that matters, the quality is shown in originality they dont care.

I see myself forced to play old games again to feel some pleasure and satisfaction again for fun with a video game.

Tomb Raider 1, Armageddon, Doom3, TA, Cossaks, Unreal Tourment, NFS underground, Cc generals, crysis, titanquest, soulreaver, prince off percia sands off time, hitman, burnout paradise, devil may cry, STALKER, grid, pure, serius sam, half live ,the amazing portal,Quake4 just some ex.

For now companies do not have great minds as already existed, we have been witnessing a major preoccupation in showing graphical quality, great DLC contents forgetting that what matters is the experiences that a certain game can give you,right now FAF its one bigest ex off what a game can give you since we play so long the same game .

Of course there are few good games released, but most, are games without any originality, or just a game in which most of the time we have no power of decision just carry on buttons that appear, or is it just a short game and with powerful graphics.

I hope that begin to realize that you can not lose the soul of the game and think of alternatives to be a balance between making money and demonstrate originality and quality.

[Vee]

Incremental improvement only goes so far. It's good that games die and new games are developed, this is how innovation happens.

[rockoe10]

The death of a game is like the death of a species. Where minor patches and graphic updates of a game are minor evolutionary changes of a species. Entire platform (or game medium) could be looked at as a change in environmental geology enabling changes that otherwise are impossible. Change is good, and it brings innovation, but I wish that we would keep what works and improve on it rather than scraping an entire 'species' and moving onto the next.

[AdmiralZeech]

It sounds like from what some of the people here say, regarding "originality" and "innovation", that these people want something new and different with their new games.

That's actually the exact opposite of what I want - eg. when a new computer chess game comes out, I don't want a new faction, new units, or special abilities on my pieces.
I want improvements in technology/infrastructure - better AI, better netcode, better online matchmaking, better graphics, works on more platforms etc.

But I want the game rules/mechanics to stay good and pure to the tried and trusted gameplay that's lasted for more than 1000 years.

In a sense, that's the main problem with Street Fighter 4 - it's popular because it appeals to the nostalgia of SF2 (same characters, similar pace, etc.) But universally all of the new mechanics added for SF4 have been disliked by most competitive players. What they wanted was the gameplay they know and love, but with updated graphics so that it stays relevant in the mass market and attracts new players. But at the same time, if they didn't add anything new to the gameplay, I can see people complaining that it's just a graphical retread and there's nothing new. I guess it's the old, "can't please everyone" or "people will always find something to complain about."


It's a little different for something like SCFA, which isn't a 10 year game and hasn't been fully refined and balanced yet. There are still lingering gameplay/balance problems that seem fundamental and impossible for the community to agree on a fix.

But let's say I was actually a billionaire, bought the rights and source code to SCFA, and then created a company to make SupCom 3.

And according to my principles, SupCom 3 is exactly identical to FAF (or whatever your favorite version of SCFA is), with no new units, factions, or mechanics. Instead, all the improvements are tech/infrastructure: 64bit, updated graphics, comprehensive online competitive features, etc. Maybe a new story campaign.

I'm trying to charge full price for SupCom3, a game with nothing new - just the gameplay you love, with a new coat of technological paint.

Would you buy my SupCom 3? Or do you need new gameplay to learn to avoid getting bored?

[LittleInferno]

Admiral I understand what you say, but this industry has been many falls of companies.

First they need to know why, then follow more closely the interests of players and what we want to.

If we are talking about sequels I'll want a game like new but refurbished units optimized interface, but without losing what the original game has.

If we talk about a new game inside various genres RPG.FPS.MMORG they must now how to give us the pleasure for play them games.

One of the most successful cases is Starcraft 2 is a good RTS but is not better than FAF.

They know exactly how to please the thousands of Starcraft players, maintaining the same combat style system, revamped interface, new game engine, new units without taking the structure of the game.

Thats wy this happend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW2vVbJSi2E

But when we FAF players start love a RTS like TA and keep all this years play and now on FAF ,and they make PA what you think FAF players feel,some like ok i get but i belive the most that play since TA want a game in the same direction ,that was Starcraft 1 passing to Starcraft 2, Planetary anhilation showld be Total Anhilation II with same structure ,iff they want make sucessor they have to respect the game structure not make a diferent game on balls(joke).

Its what i think i might be rong but...

They make new game but keep the same game impossible not love.

[stalewee]

Mario Kart 64 will outlast them all!

[Mr-Smith]

And dont forget the classics like Teris

[BushMaster]

I spent an hour writing a very elaborate post picking out the falacies, incoherentness, ect... of everything in this thread and its replys, but alas, i click link and i lost everything. so im just going to say this instead

this post (semi-rant) while not nessessarily false in nature, is built on alot of unmature concepts, ideas, and a lack of understanding as a whole (im not trying to be mean here) and also contains alot of false assumptions. in general, the "rant" is undeveloped, and im not saying its wrong or right, im merely saying its built on a false foundation and using things that are simply unture as support.

say what you want about this post, even ask me to write the original, i wont and i dont really care anymore, ive decided its not worth my time after all.