GG is under appreciated

#81 Anyone know what the only game that is sold out everywhere in town for the PSP is?

It's called Lumines.

For the record, Tribes had a huge-ass backstory.

#82 Yeah, Lumines is good... and its popular, but there really aren't that many PSP games out to start with, so the feat is weakened just a bit.

Yeah, Tribes had a large story much in the sense of a game like Armored Core 3 (little revealed at a time, but much to think on), so bad example on my part... Better to replace it with say... Bio Menace (Apogee).

#83 I should have clarified, actually. Tribes has a huge story, not many people really know about it because it didn't matter. The game didn't depend on it at all. It was al good game because of the gameplay, not the story and not the graphics. I wasn't actually trying to make a point with that, just setting the record straight. Sorry.

There are a decent amount of launch titles for the PSP though. At least 3 of them are good. Metal Gear Acid (seems to be getting trashed in reviews by people who wanted Metal Gear Solid and got a tactics game), Lumines and I hear (I think) Wipeout Pure is pretty awesome. Tony Hawk seemed ok, but I don't like that game, so I can't comment. I have MGA and Lumines. Lumines is probably the best game I've played in a long time. I used to point to WoW for a game that had a ton of polish on it, but I think that Lumines *may* have taken that crown. To their credit, though, WoW is a hell of a lot bigger than Lumines.

#84 A lot of the finer points of the Tribes story was in the manual... one of the reasons its so easy to gloss over. (which of course goes back to the glory days of large and expansive manuals which often contained a good portion of the story. I miss large manuals :/)

#85 I was brought up on the C64 :P

#86 Yeah, I can remember back when I would buy a new sierra game and I knew that It would have a good manual and the Sierra insider so I could drool over what was coming out next.

#87 Just to chime in about Lumines..

@Jonathan
Actually, the launch of PSP saw titles covering a great many ends of the game genre specturm. Fighting, racing, rpg, puzzle, action, sports, card/strategy, etc. And lets not forget the HUGE brand lines that are making appearances. We're talking very well known and respected licenses; Need for Speed, Ridge Racer, Darkstalkers, FIFA and NBA and PGA, Wipeout, Twisted Metal, Metal Gear Solid, and yet an original puzzle game with no real marketing to speak of is leading the pack. I simply disagree that this feat is weakened. The psp launched with around 10-12 games in the official first offering, which isn't too bad for a portable system. Lets not forget that in Japan there is more than double that amount (I snagged a japanese PSP in January, so i've been following the releases there a bit). Hell, look at the Game Gear, or the Nintendo DS, or the Lynx; 10 titles at launch would've been great- hell, 10 titles after 3 or 4 months wouldve been great!

Ok, so maybe i'm a Lumines fanboy :) But I admit it!!

#88 It IS rather amazing that it pulled ahead of Metal Gear (in spite of it being supposedly mediocre). Twisted Metal would probably be the next biggest spectacle for it to lead on. Its just sort of easy to see how a puzzle game would naturally be more inclined to lead in sales on a portable gaming system though. Afterall, until just very recently, the closest thing you had to the mainstream console's power in a portable gaming system was the GBA (well, mainstream anyway...).

#89 Yes, I agree that it isn't a big suprise. I remember my original Gameboy, and how I played Tetris on that thing from day one til the day it broke; easily more than any of my other games! I attribute this to the inherent replayability present in puzzle games. Though- I must say, im very impressed with the quality of ALL the initial PSP offerings! This is definately one of the better launches in recent memory. The Dreamcast also had a pretty killer opening.

#90 Maybe that's the real distinction, Corey--replayability. Puzzle type games are not so linear; games that are essentially different each time you play them seem to be better and last a long time. Eye-candy graphics and pretty polish seems to attract people to games initially, but if the gameplay is dull and repetitive every time you replay it, the same old game basically, it does not stand the test of time.
Civilization and the Sims are, too, very different games each time you play them. Almost evere puzzly type game is like that too--Tetris or whatever. One of the oldest games we have, Chess, is still popular, not a puzzle game but a strategy game...it's intellectually stimulating, very challenging (depending upon one's competiton), and it *is* a different game each time you get into it. Plus it's a war game--mainly symbolically--and so is much more popular with men than with women. My favorite version of it was Battle Chess--I think back in 1990 or 1991, but perhaps it was out for a few years before that =)

Well, Chess is certainly not grand and involving...but it is incredibly complex. But I think it's important to look at all types of games--don't just concentrate on computer games. Look back at the board games or card games you played as kids (if you did play any) and try to figure out what you liked about them, and more significantly why you kept going back to play them.
I played Risk much more than Chess becuz I liked the military strategy on an actual map (though I loved Chess, too, but I didn't have many people around who also played it). I liked the dynamics of Risk, which changed with each game and with whom you played against. I don't know how 'casual' it was or if was a best-seller or not--of course at the time I didn't care about such things. It was just fun to play and very challenging.

IMO, I don't think it's wise to get hung up on marketing terms and focus on demographics and other such stuff. When a good writer creates a novel from a story, he doesn't sit wondering about what people will like and what will sell; he doesn't study statistics about which character of a selected age demographic people can relate to; he doesn't set out to write a "best-seller." No, he's an artist, he creates; he has some ideas and writes a book and hopes that people will like it so that he can make a decent living at it, as well so he can continue his creation process. But he doesn't simulate a composite novel based upon other successfully selling novels. Well, some writers do, but not good ones, not ones who are artists true to their craft.
What I'm blathering about is...perhaps none of this really matters. How about just try to create the best game you can and don't be caught up with public opinion and what's hyped and what's selling, what's "hot!" and marketing research and other junk discussed in board meetings by suits. As indies, we have the unique opportunity to be true artists and create something different in an industry which fosters the production of clone after clone, becuz the public eats it up--becuz their apparent choices are very limited.
We can offer them different choices, without being bogged down with the pressure to conform to what the massive corporations tell us that the public wants. Me, personally, I'm not that interested in what the public wants--becuz they don't really know anymore, anyway...large companies hire squads of psychologists to determine what people want, but they put much more effort into *convincing* people that, Yes, this is what you want; you just can't live without this product, Sir or Ma'am. I'm not even going to think about marketing my game until its finished--but that's just me.

#91 (continued...)

My attitude is, if you're a creator, create; if people like it, great...if not, oh well, make something else. People have only vague ideas about what they want--until they see it, then they know they want it. If you value your own opinion of games, look back on the games you loved and understand what about them made them great to you--basically, trust yourself and don't rely so much on what others tell you the people want.
But then again, that's just my opinion.

Anyway, I digress... back on topic--I don't really think GG is underappreciated. I do think it is undersupported, though. For an analogy, say, movies and games, maybe hopefully we'll have something like an Independent Game Developers Guild or something like that. Something like the IFC for the film creation business--without these indies, we're just slaves to Hollywood. As with games, we're slaves to billion-dollar corporations, opening our mouths to swallow whatever they feel like stuffing down our throats.
So, appreciation is great--but support for independents is much more crucial, IMHO.

--Thomas.

#92 Uh... Chess really isn't that complex. The potential strategy surround Chess is the complex part. The moves for the most part are incredibly simple, and the single most complex mechanic of gameplay is probably capturing moves en-pes'sant (probably spelled it wrong...) which was really just brought about to add a counter to the addendum that allowed pawns two forward moves in the beginning, which in any case really isn't that hard to grasp. Well, I take that back... the rook+king move is a good bit stranger than that.

#93 "The potential strategy surround Chess is the complex part."

Yes, that's what I meant =)
The moves are not that difficult to comprehend--for someone learning the game for the first time. All that's required is a general ability to memorize and some spatial perception. The strategy involved, though, can get fairly complex, as you say. Plotting out several moves into the future based upon the opponent's possible or probable moves is the part that is difficult.

#94 Yeah, but what can honestly be more simple than brain vs. brain?

#95 Deep Blue's chess scoring function considers around 8000 different features. Brain vs. Brain isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. ;)

#96 We are talking board games, not AI. As in, not the computer versions. AI isn't factored into the equation :P.

#97 Yeah, well, don't get me started on AI...it should be AS (Artificial Stupidity). I have not played a game yet which had a challenging AI. I've gotten back into Battlefield 1942 and I'm (still) surprized by what a complete twit the AI is, just like every other game I've played, even strategy games which allocate more effort into the AI. I think the AI is *the* most underdeveloped aspect of gaming (I wonder what % of total effort of a given game is allocated to the AI)...maybe that's why multiplayer is so popular...half those people would play single player if the AI was even slightly Intelligent...

/Rant.

#98 I thought Halo had some decent AI. Considering all that goes into programming AI.

#99 Uh... Civilization series has some of the hardest AI Iv'e ever seen... or maybe I'm just not very good at it, but anyway, yeah... Diety mode beats the crap outta me pretty easy in Civ 1, 2, or 3.

#100 When you can develop AI that really meets your standards then I'd say you hae the right to down on all the previous AI's ;)

Its one of those things that seems like it would be easy but really is insanely hard... since it really isnt Intelligence... its the simulation and illusion of intelligent...