How to make a game last 20+ years?

General Discussion
Call it Monopoly!
02/02/2018 11:52 AMPosted by Shanso
Call it Monopoly!

Chess Mate
:-)
02/02/2018 11:52 AMPosted by Shanso
Call it Monopoly!


That’s not a game, it’s a life lesson.
For example WoW has lasted for quite a long time so far, much longer than their competition, which are all but dead. But even now WoW, as I understand, doesn't have the same popularity it once had.


Hmmmm
Anarchy Online: Release year 2001 - still alive
Final Fantasy XI: Release year 2002 - still alive
Entropia Universe: Release year 2003 - still alive
World of Warcraft: Release year 2004 - still alive

Anyway, for a game that lasts more than 20+ years it needs a good concept and/or always some content patches/modding.
OpenTTD, basically Transport Tycoon Deluxe with modding, is still alive. Transport Tycoon Deluxe has been released in 1994.
Lol count the new sales. Others' opinions shouldn't count for all.

Clearly, you are entitled your opinions. You can't speak for others.

What I've stated aren't my opinions, I am not biased.

Clearly, a vast number of people described each and every one of those, "alive," games to be dead weights not quite worth the trouble.

Especially, if you've attentively listened to those who've been playing them, too.

Why should anyone tied to playing any of those games speak up?

It's the same old gong show. Even then, there are barely a dozen titles amounting to today's success, if they are, in fact, raking in new sales & real revenue.
Assassin's creed is doing a pretty decent job like WoW of keeping its audience.
02/02/2018 12:46 PMPosted by Midnight
02/02/2018 11:52 AMPosted by Shanso
Call it Monopoly!


That’s not a game, it’s a life lesson.

Just like Chess Mate and Poker
;-)
02/01/2018 12:11 PMPosted by Xombie
02/01/2018 10:11 AMPosted by Seccie
Besides, who would still actively play something that's just about 20 years old?

I bought D2 a few years ago and still play it. I still play Commander Keen, Heroes of Might and Magic II, and Ultimate Doom. Classic games are classic.


Oh dude! Commander Keen was awesome! I played that game religiously until I found Diablo.
By, no means, is 20 years a decent amount of time for a product to last. <--- Or, the life of a product.

It would look like something with a solid start, solid finish, & solid growth.

No repetition. With, everything about that game, being for that game.

--> Something like a functionable game?

--> Wouldn't it be nice to see all the merchandise? I'd like to go through all the complete written works to compare the main story with. For all, anyone would know, Assassin's Creed may have a main story focusing on specific alter ego's, quite possibly based on something with a different title, even. Assassin's Creed centers around gameplay, and it's a little disappointing with every repetition.

--> Sequels & installments, defined as partial-releases, destroy replay-ability. Almost like quantifying the releases, when it barely amounts to 1 title/release. Also, when partial-releases are chopped up into having expansions, also known as fractions of segments, many problems carry over and have remained. Who's to say that having expansions included as releases isn't the problem, too? <----That's barely a freaking word - Expansions have no sellability.

--> When a game/story just ends, commonly referred to as a cliffhanger, they aren't exactly tactful or considered to be real endings. By law, nothing can be misleading. Things, especially work, can not be left for depiction. A work can not just be continuated through another work. A Mozart is a Mozart - that was the problem. Maybe Mozart was only suited as a songwriter. Just like most of the notable names when it comes to art, many are just gathered collections. Barely any of Shakespeare's plays were his creations or, "works." He only had like 2 mediocre titles unreleased as private shows. Would anyone react differently if any of them were to be an opera? Maybe he only wanted to coordinate a symphony. Games haven't been making the cut.

If only the runts could do better than their referred fogeys. Pull your weights - you're behind.

"It like you bring a tank to a paintball match just to lose, and you not drunk."
I am baffled how a Diablo player can ask such a question.

D2 is doing it for 18 years so far, and the next two years wont change that. When D2 Remastered launches, and only improves textures, sprites, sound fidelity and 16:9 aspect ratio, then D2 will live for another 20 years if not more. D2 is timeless due to countless factors that I wont list here because it might crash your browser.

If today's gamers would not be such carebears and self-entitled noobsauces, then D2 would have a bigger playerbase than D3.
02/02/2018 09:01 PMPosted by TOPCommander
I am baffled how a Diablo player can ask such a question.

D2 is doing it for 18 years so far, and the next two years wont change that. When D2 Remastered launches, and only improves textures, sprites, sound fidelity and 16:9 aspect ratio, then D2 will live for another 20 years if not more. D2 is timeless due to countless factors that I wont list here because it might crash your browser.

If today's gamers would not be such carebears and self-entitled noobsauces, then D2 would have a bigger playerbase than D3.


It would only take 20 years of failures, for someone else to come up with another release. Money! If the guy was the one to correct D2 + LoD, instead of coming up with a, "remaster," he'd be entitled the entire earnings (1 gross revenue, no?), be reimbursed the deficits, & compensated for the losses. Would anyone wonder where the actual entitlement would go? I don't think those things were meant to be moved.

#IbringDiabloOnline

Does D3 as an uninherent sequel, with another sequel underway, make sense?
02/01/2018 09:53 AMPosted by Merp
02/01/2018 09:25 AMPosted by LouisDragon
nothing like diablo will last 20 years.
have to be some boring game like crossword or tetris


Really? Diablo 2 was released in the year 2000. It's been 18 years already and people still play that game. Want to try again?


Lmao, so your criteria for a game lasting 18 years , is if still a few dozen people play it now and then?

By that logic, every single game ever created is still "lasting", and D3 will certainly be no different.
02/03/2018 07:44 AMPosted by Ambush
02/01/2018 09:53 AMPosted by Merp
...

Really? Diablo 2 was released in the year 2000. It's been 18 years already and people still play that game. Want to try again?


Lmao, so your criteria for a game lasting 18 years , is if still a few dozen people play it now and then?

By that logic, every single game ever created is still "lasting", and D3 will certainly be no different.


That's only if it is counted. There are an unlimited way to fake success.
"HOW TO MAKE A GAME LAST 20+ YEARS?"

Well wait until june 29 in 2020 and then ask David Brevik.
02/03/2018 01:23 PMPosted by NINEGRAVES
"HOW TO MAKE A GAME LAST 20+ YEARS?"

Well wait until june 29 in 2020 and then ask David Brevik.

Ask David Brevik about Marvel Heroes
;-)
02/03/2018 01:32 PMPosted by AranHaelVal
Ask David Brevik about Marvel Heroes
;-)


Nor that and also not Hellgate London change anything on the neverending success of D2. These were totally different projects and sadly its not like that if you create a bomb of a game one time that everything new your going to try will be the same level of success again.

Ask all these quit/fired/moved D3 devs weve had here in the past - iam sure they can sing you a song about that. ;)
02/03/2018 01:59 PMPosted by NINEGRAVES
Ask all these quit/fired/moved D3 devs weve had here in the past - iam sure they can sing you a song about that. ;)

I don't need a song. Diablo Scores are good enough.
I need a modern Huge RPG Hack & Slash game.
If the Company wants them and if they want the Company, come back and start working on the next Diablo project !
Nice and easy.
:-)
02/02/2018 09:01 PMPosted by TOPCommander
I am baffled how a Diablo player can ask such a question.

D2 is doing it for 18 years so far, and the next two years wont change that. When D2 Remastered launches, and only improves textures, sprites, sound fidelity and 16:9 aspect ratio, then D2 will live for another 20 years if not more. D2 is timeless due to countless factors that I wont list here because it might crash your browser.

If today's gamers would not be such carebears and self-entitled noobsauces, then D2 would have a bigger playerbase than D3.
oh I wouldn’t say D2 lasted that long. It declined a lot in popularity. Outdated, very outdated.

Very few play it, it’s not a talk of the town anymore.
This applies to D3 lasting for 20 years..

Play once a year for 15 mins (average time to realize how boring the game is)

So once a year just to remind you how bad this game is.
They need to balance the game, focus on removing cheating, and have a competitive aspect in the game. Sadly, those aspects don't bring in money.

Blizzard did it right with games like Broodwars. But on other games, they keep making changes (since that's what brings in money), which is why the other games don't really "last". I mean WoW and stuff is still around, but realistically the WoW now isn't the same game as it was 3 or 5 years ago. It's more like a new game maintaining the same name.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum