|
Anthropoid -> RE: Johan of Paradox basically says Western Civilization games are a joke (4/18/2010 12:35:07 PM)
|
Of course you WCS and Matrix guys know I LOVE you guys, and your games. But I also happen to love some of Johan's and Paradox' games . . . does that make me a game slut? [:D] If so, okay whatever.
Never bought HOI3. Didn't buy my first Paradox title until last fall and in quick succession I got: EU Complete, EU HTT, EU Rome Gold, Crusader Kings + Deus Vult, Victoria Complete, then Arsenal of Democracy. About one Paradox game per month for the last six months.
I like all those games a lot and I've been impressed with the community and devs for all those games. Now granted, I came along LONG after most all those games (except AOD) were long post release and had lots of patches, etc., and I have avoided the one game that has had the most problem (HOI3). It is true that AOD still needs some balancing: at present it seems armor is overpowered; but overall the game works well. The other consistent critique I could make of Paradox is that they do a poor (you could say very poor) job with getting the feel for naval right. Naval just feels wrong in their games. It is a bit better in AOD, but still not quite right.
Now as to this "tactical in a strategy game" is a joke thing. I know that you WCS guys know me, and so I'll be completely honest: the two-level tactical-strategic part of FoF and Crown of Glory is simultaneously one of this engines greatest fundamental across-the-board strengths, but also unfortunately, in the long-run of gamer-learning curve and replayability, one of the engines weaknesses. I'm afraid this is just simply a reflection on how 'stupid' "artificial intelligence" algorithms are at this stage. I played FoF for a LONG time before I'd say I "mastered it" and I loved the game. I had a great deal of fun with the game, including the tactical part. But the AI just never learned (unlike me or you guys) and as a consequence, in the long-run the tactical part of the game became more and more of an 'exploit' than an integral part of the decision-making challenge process.
In short, WCS must be given the highest accolades for having taken this incredibly innovative step to incorporate tac with strat, and having achieved such a high level of success with it that Grogs (many of them anyway) and quite possibly other gamer types, get a LOT of enjoyment out of the design innovation.
But this is not to say that the Tac + Strat engine that you guys have developed is at this stage fully realized. It is still nascent. I'm not the only one of us here at Matrix whom I seen express this same sentiment. I've seen some guys express in very eloquent ways how they think that focusing on refinements to the Tac part of the engine could benefit the design tremendously, and I agree with a lot of those ideas. This is not the same as saying that "Tac + Grand Strat is a 'joke'" and dispelling the innovation entirely.
It is ironic that for such a highly intelligent and creative bunch we gamers (as a population) seem to tend toward these highly-opinionated polar standpoints. I think perhaps it is because our greatest fear is that we are not really as good at what we love to do as we think we are: learn and understand complex ecological processes (CEP). When we encounter another vision of how to represent a CEP, we sometimes recoil in fear, as I think Johan is doing (unconsciously) when he calls it a 'joke.' He is right in the sense that it makes the game much more exploitable, but that is not the same as making it into a 'joke.' There are LOTS of intrinsic features to computer games that make them 'exploitable' (restarts, editors, text and other database files) which a player can easily take advantage of to spoil the simulation, but we don't tend to think of those as exploits but rather as cheats. Likewise, you can think of the 'exploits' that you can engage in in the Tac battles in FoF or CoGEE as being 'cheats' of a kind. Play out your battles with some well-defined boundaries for how you will use your Brigades and the Tac battles are much less exploitable than if you simply maximize your God-like control.
I like to encourage innovation, and I see the Tac + Grand Strategy as being an innovation. During the early phases of innovations, they frequently do not work up to their potential, but without encouragement they may never develop to the point that they do. A poignant example of this was Ageod's WWI: there was great deal of innovation in that game, so despite the fact that it was so frustratingly painful to play it (even 4 months after initial release) I never ranted against it and tried my best to offer constructive feedback to Calvinus and the Ageod community. This does not mean I'm going to pay another $40 for a very large patch to have a properly oriented map and a game that actually works . . . well, MAYBE if I start to hear about how great it is after it has been out for a while . . . after all a slut just can't help hisself [:D]
ADDIT: just to comment to a bit more here, sense I pick up a bit of anti-Paradox in this thread [:D]
quote:
Also I'm not certain as I've only played HoI but aren't all their games the same??? are they bashing an engine to death?? Isn't it a case of lets use the EU engine for a game covering the victorian era....
Based on my (highly-selective) experience with the Paradox games I've bought as described above I would say no, this is not the case.
The basic mechanics of the EU engine are indeed visibly the basis for all their games that I've played. But the list of the titles I have bought takes that engine and morphs it into rather distinctive flavors. Crusader Kings DV (which is now quite old and needs to have an expansion) is much more about dynasties, characters, and a Medieval flavor. Certainly not a 'perfect' game, but then which one is. Rome is similar to CKDV. Victoria Revolutions (quite possibly my favorite game of all time) takes the basic EU engine and does the best job I have ever seen of simulating the importance of social class/demographic changes (growth of a middle class and consumer markets) ideological clashes and industrialization in 19th century history. It is one of the HARDEST games I have ever tried to learn, and it was only sheer doggedness that kept me from just quitting it and relegating it to the neglected pile. But once I started to figure out the trade engine and how the scripted events worked into, I had many many evenings of fun with it.
For me as a game slut who just wants to have the most fun, my strategy with Paradox is just simply not not buy something for about six months or a year after it is released and I can see by the dialogue on the forums that their patches seemed to have actually got it into good working order. I bought AOD right after release and I'm not totally upset that I did, but I can see that they do tend to release their games in a fairly early stage. If they make money (which it would seem they are doing) and their business is growing, who can blame them?
|
|
|
|
