pasternakski
Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
|
I will try this one more time.
When a game idea is decided on for publication, you've got to design the game engine around the idea. In the case of UV, for example, the engine was to have been what the designers saw as an operational-level simulation of theater-level command in WWII South Pacific. Many of the mechanics, such as AI selection of TF targets for air groups on naval attack missions, grew from this design basis.
So far, so good. Then the game was published, and all he11 broke loose. It became apparent that players wanted more control, that they wanted weapons systems to perform differently from the way they were designed into the game, that they wanted to explore more "what ifs" through the editor. Many patches later, the game is in some ways very different from the game that was published.
This trend appears to be prevailing through the course of the WitP development. Now, I have no problem with the direction things are going in except this: the game becomes something different from what was originally intended, leaving me wondering what the game would have been had the original design idea been adhered to.
I hope we all enjoy fiddling around with the editor. I believe, however, that we're only kidding ourselves if we think that the game system is going to allow us to build scenarios that are faithful to rational models of "what if" history by merely changing the characteristics of weapons systems and other items accessible through the editor.
For example, it looks like you will be able to build what appears to be a 1920s war between the U.S. and Japan. Think about the amount of the game system that is focused on aircraft as they performed during the actual time frame of WWII that you will by trying to ignore in doing this. Think about the map and presentation of communication links as they were in the '40s, not the '20s. Ship repair. Troop and equipment reinforcement and replacement rates. The AI (both as opponent and subordinate). How good a simulation will you wind up with? If the game was designed from its inception to present a hypothetical war of this nature set in the '20s, it might have been a good, interesting game. This beast will be nothing but a sad bastardization of a game that was, and is, intended to do something else.
My problem is this. If game design becomes enslaved by those who want nothing but "wargame construction kits," we all lose. I prefer games that remain true to their initial concept. Some flexibility is necessary, of course, in the design process, but I think that modifications "on the fly" should be carefully considered by the design team before being thrown in to satisfy those who refuse to be satisfied with the game as published.
_____________________________
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
|
Printable Version
RE: WHAT WILL BE THE CHOICES? - 
Randomizing the starting positions isn't enough to solve the problem, unless the USN presence (not just position) is also randomized, with a high probability of the Americans showing up later, or not at all - and also a near-certainty that the invasion will fail if the Japanese player does not adequately support the landings (say, because he's keeping Kido Butai in reserve against a possible appearance by the US CVs). Any "Midway Scenario" that doesn't include a pretty huge level of uncertainty for the Japanese player isn't really a Midway scenario. Similarly, the US player in a "Leyte Gulf Scenario" should never know in advance whether Ozawa's carriers are a real danger or toothless decoys. Hindsight is a b- err, beast
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread