|
Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (5/9/2003 9:55:56 PM)
|
Hmm there is actually something I can comment on.
Excellence, I support it myself. Always shoot for your best effort, never intentionally limit yourself.
The moment you are satisfied, is the moment you need to raise your expectations.
I apply this attitude to making models as well. I never spend "just enough" time on making a model, I always spend the maximum time on each part. If you slack off at any one stage, the end result will highlight all the places where you did.
I have seen some models with superb paint jobs, indicating the modeller was superb at painting, but the assembly left some opportunities to ruin the accomplishment. A common example being removal of seam work or some other area where the job was to rushed.
How this can be applied to a computer game, can for me be excellently demonstrated by the game Strategic Command.
The reason I even cared to play it in the first place, was the interface eh.
It wasn't the tutorial, or the rule book, or the graphics, or the historical accuracy, or it's ability to be played online. Those are all very valid reasons of course.
But the game at its very core, is a very well made program where actually running it is concerned. It is in my opinion, quite frankly, one of the most easy to play wargames I have ever encountered in any scale genre or type ever.
It is always important to spend a maximum effort all the time if something is going to be any good.
I think the problem with the AI issue though, is it is possible having an AI is sometimes due to mis directed justification.
An AI not present in a game, where the user is expecting to play the game solo, is of course a problem.
An AI present in a game, where the user has no desire to play against the AI is obviously a mistake.
An AI should always be an option, when it should be just that, an option.
When a game is designed, each component should be given the relevant level of effort, so as to not drag down the whole. Spending to much time on one component, can be a detriment to the game as a whole, if the other portions end up lacking.
I have seen games that over emphasized one aspect, to make it appealing to a focused group easily swayed by that aspect, only to watch if flounder, because the game as a whole was not a good total all round package.
The greatest graphics on the market, will not reel me in, if they are part of a bad over all wargame design. I can say that I was very disappointed with Sudden Strike 2 after I was able to play it for a while.
At first glance, the game looks like a superb game. The graphics are really quite nice looking graphics.
Unfortunately, the game plays like a mob of grade 3 mentallity forces with weapons added in.
I can't speak for others, but my wargames must run in a serious credible fashion, or the illusion is broken. If I want silly, I will play Worms Armageddon. It is also challenging, but I was always aware it would look silly, and with weapons.
And yes the much maligned HoI. When I step back and decide to lay off my comical ranting, in the end, the only thing truely wrong in thinking, was the choice to make a grand strategy micromanaged wargame in real time in my opinion.
And judging from reports, I think they are planning on using the same game engine for Civil War and WW1 (god help us).
I think SS2 and HoI are examples of designing a game, and not spending the effort to ensure the whole design is excellent.
I will likely buy Hubert Cater's next program (he made SC). I will almost certainly not play anything that looks like SS2 or HoI. I have no faith in the people making them.
|
|
|
|
