Empires is fun to me right now. Infact, Empires is the game that I've played consistently the longest. Empires doesn't get boring. Empires is a success. Sourcemods don't compare with retail games. Your idea of a "better game" has already been done tons of times. Once again, if you don't like Empires, go play something else.
I enjoy empires, when I get a good game of it, which isn't as often as I'd like, but I do enjoy it. I keep coming back to it, it does not get boring as quickly as many other games. However, we are in the minority. Far more people than should do find empires boring, they don't find it fun, they do not consider it a success. So regardless of whether I am happy with the game as is, if many other people dislike it then it should be changed. To make it a better game. The only reason a source mod cannot compare with a retail game is lack of effort, lack of intent to improve it, lack of what I suppose is usually called 'ambition', although I don't understand ambition so I could be wrong. It may have been attempted many times before but it has obviously never been achieved, otherwise people would never play anything else. There is no reason why empires cannot be a game many people want to play and will continue playing for a long time. Obviously it is unlikely to ever become the perfect game where once you start playing it you never stop and end up dying of malnutrition in front of your computer, but it's something worth aiming for.
Well fuck the majority. THEY have their games to play and WE have our Empires to play. Empires don't need to impress anyone. Its honest Gung Ho teamwork and fun. Most Sourcemod devs don't have millions of dollars of advertising revenue. They don't get wide coverage in media. In fact, most people don't even know mods exist, and its likely going to stay that way because mods can't pay for advertising.
Mods can't get the numbers retail games can, but they can get relative numbers and be of retail quality. I find the anti-populist attitude rather silly.
Concept is, too bad the art, models, gameplay mechanics aren't. Then again, it doesn't have a retail game dev team and funding, so expecting that much is idiotic.
This is quite simply not true. Games are meant to be fun but because a game is not fun for everyone does not make it a bad game. Different people have different tastes and likes/dislikes, making a game that you want to play and find fun makes it a good game because it has succeed in its goal, to be fun. By your argument Real Time Strategy games are better than Turn Based Strategy games because more people enjoy them. A game is good or not depending on how well it entertains you, the opinions of everyone else do not matter. The developers made a game that they would enjoy, one that they felt had not already been made. Popular != better, popular = more profitable, a better game would be a game I enjoy more rather than one which other people prefer. Blizzard is one of the best game companies because they make games which a lot of people buy making them a lot of money. If you are going to make something for non-financial reasons you will want to make something you like. If the majority of people are not into what you like then that is no reason to not make what you want.
That isn't a very good indication of its quality, you can find someone willing to buy just about anything.
Actually, i would just throw him into a bin, Hamster i'm with you When i get my PayPal running, i'll donate it Because i don't want another shitty copypaste and pulp for masses. Because apparently for you better means simple, un-innovative, boring, average and so on. Most of games you marked as better: -i played them, got bored off, forgot about them -i didn't even bothered to play them Gears of War should be the best game ever, because zylions of people play it..sorry to break it for you, didn't even bothered to finish it. Got bored off Assasins Creed. I wouldn't bother finishing Mass Effect either, however it had a story. Not going to buy Mass Effect 2. Actually, most of new, "succesfull and awesome" games are p.o.s. to me. Half Life 2 is kinda different, you get sucked in by the story and it's just pumped with action (if it would be up to me, i would even add more pressure, limited time for example) CoD4 got it nice, both random pubbers and nerds/nolifers like me can play it. Single Player: You can play on normal, drunken monkey could do it. There also is a feared Vet level Same with multi: you can play "realistic" Quake 3 or go HC
OK, the flame war needs to stop. Incorrect assumption. I've seen very pro level games come out of very humble teams. It's all about the quality of their work and their dedication. See the ENTIRE INDIE GAME SCENE. As far as "popularity" versus "good game," I believe that popularity can be a good indicator, but is not the heuristic we should use. I present for you the case of Monopoly. It, at its core, is a horrible board game. Everyone tends to groan about it, it only really becomes fun for the people who hold the money, and it's a game based on taking money from each other which creates a severely antagonistic and cutthroat game. Most families would rather play something more fun and less "curse you dice now I want to strangle the guy next to me." As a counter, I present Settlers of Catan. It's relatively new to the US board game scene. Most people scratch their heads when I mention it. However, it's an extraordinarily solid game, great competition and teamwork, but it's all about building and trading, not about hoarding Park Place. That being said, the people exposed to it can't stop raving, and it's picking up steam. All you Europeans can probably attest to its quality and its proliferation on that side of the ocean. The morale of the story is that popularity doesn't equal good game. Sometimes there are great games that just haven't gotten the spotlight. Other times you have the hyped up fanboys keeping something afloat for no reason whatsoever. Empires HAS GOTTEN THE SPOTLIGHT AND FAILED. Empires 2.0 had a huge press release, a nice ad in Steam Updates, but was not ready. It didn't have proper balance, people griped about the UI, there was nasty lag still, random exploits, and basically it was popular for about a week and then died. That's the sign of a bad game. When you can't even retain players. An even larger exodus, at least in my mind, was during the partial patch debaucle where the dev team decided to release half of the re-balancing for the pure purpose of releasing something to keep the community interested. That was major fail, created more imbalances than anyone wanted, and some serious players stopped playing entirely. I know I haven't played much because I'm still waiting for some core elements to get revamped. So, Empires has great ideas, but it fails in the execution. I frankly don't care how much you gush about it being the greatest game ever that you play every day for 10 hours, because then I just dismiss you as a fanboy and not a critical thinker on this subject. I do love being a fanboy for things that are worth it, but every now and then you need to step back and take a good look to make sure it's worth it. Empires has the potential to be worth it in my book, but it's not there yet.
First of all, I want hit registriation fixed. I meleed(i mean my client showed i hit him;with melee upgrade) THREE times, and guy didn't die. Sometimes i fire entire clip in guy that aint moving, and i don't get kill, hits on me register after even 5 seconds...THAT REALLY SUCKS I want APC spawns back, no one research it anymore, It added real deal of diversity, gave you chance to change the tide of battle (i don't mean comm rushing),I mean Colony APC's. Last patches removed most of diversity. No APC spawn points, raxes need 9000 calc power to get build...I team cannot handle ninjarax, they do not deserve to win. Same with weapons (i won't go over that nerf). If you die to an engineer with SMG1 while having auto rifle... There is diagnosis for you: YOU SUCK And i still see people whining about nerfing SMG's. It deals what? 8dmg/shot on longer range?
My uncle is very good at monopoly. He always plays the banker, and always cheats. I view this as being the point of the game. I'd like SMGs to be nerfed in maximum range but buffed in closer range, basically making them bullet hose weapons which can be used more easily than ARs at close range but which generally aren't as good. If you could use SMGs while moving and fire them in prolonged bursts it would make a nice change from the 'tap mouse1' way of using every other weapon. A small widening of the minimum spread and a considerable clamping of the maximum spread would suffice.
I'd like all plays with hamster in their name to automatically get built in aimbot and +10 dexterity bonus so Empires is bent to benefit one random group of players who complain on the forums a lot.
Empires can't be steamwork'd yet, NOT YET, it still is missing a couple of screws, once we get aircraft(which won't happen so disregard what i just said) better 3d sky boxes, attractive ww1/2 maps, tutorials like smashball and dystopia style, better effects, did i say 3d sky boxes already(as much as we already have 3d sky boxes, they are really not that amazing to gaze upon, like look at duststorm, it's bassically a skycam with a bit of terrain but magnified million times to give the impression that your not getting out of that desert)
