theREDdrag
I'm more of adventure puzzle kind of gamer but I like other game genres too. I notice a big difference in the old games and the new games these days. The developers of the new games are focusing more on graphics than the stories and originality. I don't know if it's nostalgia or if there's a conspiracy of focusing on graphics and repetitiveness in newer games. There are some original games developed these days but very few. Anyway, to me a game is an idea expressing itself.
Answer
I agree that adventure puzzle games like Lara Croft are becoming rare but here's plenty of really fun arcade style adventure puzzle games around like Limbo, Shadow Complex, and Outland.
Hydrophobia is a personal favourite.
There are still highly original games being made even in these "modern times":
Earth Defense Force, Assassin's Creed, Dead Space, Kane & Lynch, The Darkness, Alan Wake, Brütal Legend, Overlord, Nier, BioShock, Call of Juarez, Mirrorâs Edge, F1 2010, Test Drive Unlimited, Alpha Protocol, Fallout 3, Darkstar One, Deadly Premonition,...these are just some that I consider original.
In 2011 alone there were a good number of games relseased with interesting storylines and/or original gameplay: Assassin's Creed Revelations, Dark Souls, Dead Island, Dead Space 2, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Driver San Francisco, El Shaddai Ascension of the Metatron, L:A. Noire, Portal 2, Saints Row The Third, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Legends of Troy.
Like the previous person wrote it depends on what you are looking for and what you consider original.
I agree that adventure puzzle games like Lara Croft are becoming rare but here's plenty of really fun arcade style adventure puzzle games around like Limbo, Shadow Complex, and Outland.
Hydrophobia is a personal favourite.
There are still highly original games being made even in these "modern times":
Earth Defense Force, Assassin's Creed, Dead Space, Kane & Lynch, The Darkness, Alan Wake, Brütal Legend, Overlord, Nier, BioShock, Call of Juarez, Mirrorâs Edge, F1 2010, Test Drive Unlimited, Alpha Protocol, Fallout 3, Darkstar One, Deadly Premonition,...these are just some that I consider original.
In 2011 alone there were a good number of games relseased with interesting storylines and/or original gameplay: Assassin's Creed Revelations, Dark Souls, Dead Island, Dead Space 2, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Driver San Francisco, El Shaddai Ascension of the Metatron, L:A. Noire, Portal 2, Saints Row The Third, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Legends of Troy.
Like the previous person wrote it depends on what you are looking for and what you consider original.
How do you understand when the chess game transforms into an endgame from a middlegame?
enrique
Consider a chess game where player A has two rooks, a bishop and few pawns, and player B has two rooks, a knight and a few pawns too. Is this still a middlegame since both sides have three pieces each? Thanks!
Answer
Not everyone uses the same definition of endgame.
Short answer--
It sounds to me like you are still in the middle game because of three factors combined. In addition to the number of pieces, there may be checkmate opportunities on the board, and it may be dangerous to move the king to the middle this early --unless you are about the exchange more pieces.
Longer answer--
Dvoretsky in his Endgame Manual 3rd. ed.(2011) at p.12 gives a precise definition saying,
"My formal definition of 'endgame' is: the stage of a chess game when at least one side has no more than one piece (in addition to the king). Positions with more pieces are not discussed here (except for the cases when the 'extra' pieces are exchanged."
But Dvoretsky may be explaining the scope of his book more than trying to express a functional definition. Note that in this context the word "piece" does not refer to pawns.
Others have used a looser definition.
For example Tarrasch in his classic book "The Game of Chess" says: If by captures or exchanges most of the pieces come off the board, then the endgame has been reached." p. 29 Hayes ed. (1994)
Averbakh in "Chess Endings Essential Knowledge" (1993) says "The endgame begins when there is a relatively small number of pieces left on the board and, but for the rare exception, direct attacks on the king with the combinational complications typical of the middlegame are impossible. p.5
Mednis wrote an entire book about the transition -- "From the Middle Game into the Endgame" (1987) and he expresses the view that one should not use mechanical tests to determine whether the end game has been reached. Here is his functional definition. p.4
"Humans, because of their ability to think, should use a 'thinking person's' approach to determine whether an endgame exists. You are likely to be in an endgame if the following conditions exist:
(1) Some exchange of material has taken place.
(2) Both kings look safe.
(3) Development and central factors are not of particular significance.
I believe that the single over-riding item is that of king safety. Not only is the king inherently safe in an endgame position, but even more to the point, the king should be centralized and utilized as a potentially valuable attacker."
The definition you choose may depend on your purpose. But I think your game is probably not in the endgame stage according to the definitions of any of the highly respected players and writers above.
Good luck. Have fun. Be relentlessly optimistic.
Not everyone uses the same definition of endgame.
Short answer--
It sounds to me like you are still in the middle game because of three factors combined. In addition to the number of pieces, there may be checkmate opportunities on the board, and it may be dangerous to move the king to the middle this early --unless you are about the exchange more pieces.
Longer answer--
Dvoretsky in his Endgame Manual 3rd. ed.(2011) at p.12 gives a precise definition saying,
"My formal definition of 'endgame' is: the stage of a chess game when at least one side has no more than one piece (in addition to the king). Positions with more pieces are not discussed here (except for the cases when the 'extra' pieces are exchanged."
But Dvoretsky may be explaining the scope of his book more than trying to express a functional definition. Note that in this context the word "piece" does not refer to pawns.
Others have used a looser definition.
For example Tarrasch in his classic book "The Game of Chess" says: If by captures or exchanges most of the pieces come off the board, then the endgame has been reached." p. 29 Hayes ed. (1994)
Averbakh in "Chess Endings Essential Knowledge" (1993) says "The endgame begins when there is a relatively small number of pieces left on the board and, but for the rare exception, direct attacks on the king with the combinational complications typical of the middlegame are impossible. p.5
Mednis wrote an entire book about the transition -- "From the Middle Game into the Endgame" (1987) and he expresses the view that one should not use mechanical tests to determine whether the end game has been reached. Here is his functional definition. p.4
"Humans, because of their ability to think, should use a 'thinking person's' approach to determine whether an endgame exists. You are likely to be in an endgame if the following conditions exist:
(1) Some exchange of material has taken place.
(2) Both kings look safe.
(3) Development and central factors are not of particular significance.
I believe that the single over-riding item is that of king safety. Not only is the king inherently safe in an endgame position, but even more to the point, the king should be centralized and utilized as a potentially valuable attacker."
The definition you choose may depend on your purpose. But I think your game is probably not in the endgame stage according to the definitions of any of the highly respected players and writers above.
Good luck. Have fun. Be relentlessly optimistic.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Read More... “Do you miss the originality of the old games?” »»
