www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The BBC has news on virtual worlds
Diem alerted me to two articles from this week on the BBC news: The NASA wants to build a virtual world which would "simulate real NASA engineering and science missions". Apart from getting young people more interested in the NASA, the virtual world would also be used for training purposes of new personnel.
The second article is about EA's new online game Battlefield Heroes. Think the comic look from Team Fortress 2 (out of the Orange Box) combined with the gameplay of the old Battlefield games. Simplified play, low system requirements, and all financed by advertising and micro-payments. As the advertisments would look odd in the game world, they will be placed on the game's website and the launcher program. Battlefield Heroes is supposed to come out later this year, and will only be distributed online, no boxes in stores. I might have a look at that one.
- posted by Tobold @ 8:50 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
"People want to play games in new ways, with easier access that is quick to the fun. With Battlefield Heroes, EA brings its first major franchise to North America and Europe with a new distribution model and pricing structure adapted to the evolving way that people play."
This is sort of good news for me. Maybe I'm just getting older, maybe I got burned out on WoW. But I simply can't be bothered anymore with grinding through endless levels to get to the 'fun part'.
It's always good when game developers put focus back on fun gameplay - and getting the 'game' back in games.
This is sort of good news for me. Maybe I'm just getting older, maybe I got burned out on WoW. But I simply can't be bothered anymore with grinding through endless levels to get to the 'fun part'.
It's always good when game developers put focus back on fun gameplay - and getting the 'game' back in games.
The games has a "cartoon-feel" and has been made simpler to play, with more emphasis on participation and fun than skill and strategy.
Although, simplifying gameplay to the lowest common denominator (instead of inventing good gameplay) is not the right direction to go...
Although, simplifying gameplay to the lowest common denominator (instead of inventing good gameplay) is not the right direction to go...
The New York Times had a similar article yesterday in which they state that you will be able to improve your character's abilities through micropayments. (The BBC article says otherwise, so it could go either way.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/technology/21game.html
I'm very wary of any game that requires me to pay more money in order to do well. If I can pay a fixed amount and be on a level playing field with other players, great. (Fixed amounts could take many forms--for example, they could be the traditional fee for the boxed game or they could be a "reasonable" fee for maxing out my players' abilities.) But if there's no cap, and anybody who wants to can pay just a little more than I paid in order to beat me reliably, there's no way I'd play.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/technology/21game.html
I'm very wary of any game that requires me to pay more money in order to do well. If I can pay a fixed amount and be on a level playing field with other players, great. (Fixed amounts could take many forms--for example, they could be the traditional fee for the boxed game or they could be a "reasonable" fee for maxing out my players' abilities.) But if there's no cap, and anybody who wants to can pay just a little more than I paid in order to beat me reliably, there's no way I'd play.
# posted by 
: 22/1/08 18:28
: 22/1/08 18:28
I'm very wary of any game that requires me to pay more money in order to do well...
...and anybody who wants to can pay just a little more than I paid in order to beat me reliably...
Yup. Money > skill is just as bad as time > skill.
The only thing money should be able to buy is what could be earned anyway through general play.
And money should only enable you to take a 'shortcut', not give you an unfair ingame advantage.
...if it was possible to legally buy a max-level, preraid-geared toon for a reasonable price, I'd probably still be playing WoW :)
...and anybody who wants to can pay just a little more than I paid in order to beat me reliably...
Yup. Money > skill is just as bad as time > skill.
The only thing money should be able to buy is what could be earned anyway through general play.
And money should only enable you to take a 'shortcut', not give you an unfair ingame advantage.
...if it was possible to legally buy a max-level, preraid-geared toon for a reasonable price, I'd probably still be playing WoW :)
Oh, I'd like to add that Battlefield 2142 is, hands down, the best game I've ever spend (a lot of) time with. The gameplay is SO good and fun, 'leveling' your soldier is secondary and almost happens as a side bonus.
But a major problem with FPSs is how the development cycle closes down as soon as the title hits the shelves. Quickly the developing team fizzels away to other projects, you see a few post-launch patches, but no new major content or gameplay upgrades are added... and then the title is abandoned.
If advertising and micro-payments could supply a succesful game with a steady stream of revenue, we might start to see the level of developer involvement and expansions of MMORPGs in FPSs.
We just might...
Post a Comment
But a major problem with FPSs is how the development cycle closes down as soon as the title hits the shelves. Quickly the developing team fizzels away to other projects, you see a few post-launch patches, but no new major content or gameplay upgrades are added... and then the title is abandoned.
If advertising and micro-payments could supply a succesful game with a steady stream of revenue, we might start to see the level of developer involvement and expansions of MMORPGs in FPSs.
We just might...
<< Home
