Players love detail - I disagree

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Players love detail - I disagree

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Players love detail - I disagree

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Players love detail - I disagree - 7/18/2003 9:51:59 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

I have taken this from a thread on the UV forum but I thought Les might have a view.

Somebody said: �that players LOVE detail. They want more detail, and more control.�

I disagree.

In the days of board games you could have a company sized action.

This is made up of 3 x 3 = 9 squads

To play my turn I give 9 orders.

As the dice has 6 sides, each order could have one of 6 results (or more if we add in the results of the Dice Roll Modifier)

But the point is that I give 9 orders.

In a PC version, each man could be represented individually � perhaps 100 men.

Each man could have a different weapon, different skills, different amounts of ammo and a different psychological breaking point.

A PC can keep track of all this data. Which means instead of 6 possible results, there are now 1,000s of possible results.

But I do not want to keep track of each individual man, or his amount of ammo etc etc etc

Instead I want to continue to give just 9 orders per turn. And use computers to fine-tune the possible outcome of each of those orders.

This is an example of taking advantage of computers to make a better game.

Post #: 1

- 7/18/2003 8:41:17 PM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

I do have a comment I guess (no really :)).

It is not how many men our represented/controlled, it is specifically HOW those men are controlled that is the key.

In ASL my squad has 4 movement points. Which is a finite budget. It means I can move them 4 hexes if each hex costs 1 movement point. I can move them into a hex that costs me 2 MPs, but then I have only 2 left. So ahex costing 3 is not an option if I only have two left.

In Steel Panthers, the squad is still a real world group of human beings. Just represented by a computer icon, and not by a 1/2 inch square piece of cardboard. The map will look the same, but it will be on a computer screen, not an image drawn on paper/board surface.

In ASL I have to actually know what each and every hex represents as a barrier to movement. Because I have to manually move the piece, and I have to know in advance, in my head, what's involved. No computer program to do all the work for me. Of course having learned all those details, I am able to do it. It's a learned skill, and either you have that learned skill, or you don't.

In Steel Panthers, you merely click on the unit. You can have the preferences set so the hex grid is visible or not. You can have the preferences set so you can see a shaded area of movement potential at that specific instant or not.
It follows, that for maximum realism, you should not have the hexes shown, nor the shaded movement range option on.
Because to get maximum feel, you don't actually want to know.

But Steel Panthers is a computer program. And a designer has had to meticulously design the program to know all of which you the gamer would have to learn to play ASL. The gamer is not required to know what's required to be known in deciding how far the squad can move. It's a detail that is removed from the process.

You as player are only required to focus on how do I take that spot of the map given the forces I have at hand.

To some, ASL is a cool game. But you can't play that cool game if you won't learn it first. No quick play option, no easy to follow tuturial. It's called a manual, and you are required to use it.

But reading manuals the likes of the ASL manual doesn't turn some people's cranks. And that is not surprising. Don't waste your time trying to get me to read your C++ manual for the same reason too :). Boooooooooring. Let someone else do it.

Detail overload can strike a board game just as easily as it can a computer game. They are both equally vulnerable to bad design decisions. A computer game can ruin the fun just as swiftly as a bad board game concept.

To some, ASL is mired in waaaaaaaay to much detail obsession. I won't even pretend to have a counter argument there. I have the complete ASL Manual, makes a fun tool for shocking people on occasion. Think your law book is daunting hey check out my ASL game. According to section X sub section X.xx of rules category X, I can do X when employing the rules for this specific unit.
Yeah that's a lot of detail.

Then there are games like Grand Strategy Real Time Strategy games (guess the name I am thinking of and win a prize :)).

Some games are just to much detail for some.

I generally don't like real time games. Most employ to many units.
Thus far, in the area of not turn using, I have found I prefer 2d look down designs with unit densities not exceeding Close Combat.
I don't reeeeally care for shooters, but if I want real time, actual real time, where the term real time won't get an argument over relevance, I will play something like battlefield 1942. Yep it really is real time. Your dude won't do squat till you make him do it. And the game could care less if you sit on your butt and do nothing. But the passage of time occurs at the exact same rate it does for the human lump sitting in front of the monitor :).
5 hours playing Battlefield 1942 really is 5 hours spent playing Battlefield 1942.
If online games were an experience free of participation cost, I suspect all other popular forms of computer gaming would suffer plumetting participation levels.
WWII Online is not exactly new as software goes, but it is basically the first foray more or less into multi user online wargame experience gaming. If it wasn't for the monthly fee, I might be interested. As it goes though, I know plenty of people that could care less how cool it might or might not look, because they refuse to pay to use it.

Detail load, it's all about detail load though.

I find Strategic Command an excellent example of low detail load. I would much rather play it, and see what my chances are of successful combat command, than play something in real time (yes guess the name and win a prize).
One game offers the experience, low detail load, the other offers the experience, great detail load, and you are not allowed to sit back and relax while playing it. it's rush rush rush, hurry up and perform your actions.

It took six years to fight WW2 as we commonly call it here in the west. So I am not overly in need of a game that can do it in 2 hours. A couple of weeks will do just fine.

Recently tried Rise of Nations. Fine enough game, but it uses rush rush rush. I would rather sit back, and play Civ 3 Play the World if I want to laugh at your efforts to control the world in a drive through history. Both games will have their fans.

Panzer General might still rank as the best combination of detail to complexity ratio. You had numerous units, but not to many. You had to manage them, but you didn't get stuck with managing endless minutae. It probably explains why the game has not yet been fully equaled even by the games of today sporting "awesome" graphics.
Awesome graphics are in some cases just pretty images. But in the end, did you actually get as good a game experience?

Eventually it will be time for game programmers to swing back in the direction of quality detail "behind the monitor". Players want a great game experience, they just don't want to be burdened by managing it.
If a computer's power is currently only being used for awesome images, you might as well do it right and watch a war movie. The average documentary is likely to be more enjoyable if you just want your eyes entertained eh.

I have found that in my small amount of playings of Strategic Command, it is clear you have to master the art of war, not master the art of detail to win in that game. That's why some can create "gambit's" that vex some players so. They have sat down and mastered their game. No amount of detail in that game will save you from a good player.
You can easily win in other games, simply because you only need to win a battle of detail load management.

Losing to me in ASL is easy to arrange. But my winning in a game of Steel Panthers is a bit more difficult. And I don't think beating me in Rise of Nations is even worthy of a cheer hehe, I suck that bad at it hehe :).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 2

- 7/18/2003 9:37:35 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

There is one simple game rule:

"It should be easy to learn, but difficult to master."

_____________________________

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 3

- 7/18/2003 11:57:49 PM

Kanon Fodder

Posts: 196
Joined: 9/8/2001
From: Portland, Orrygun
Status: offline

Joe and Von Rom said it nicely ...
:cool:

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 4

- 7/19/2003 12:05:50 AM

Zakhal

Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyv�skyl�, Finland
Status: offline

"Game Data:
Complexity: Advance - Grognard"

Nuff' said.

_____________________________

"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."� Edmund Burke

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 5

- 7/22/2003 1:05:35 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

The level of detail should be enough to allow you to do what needs to be done from an informed standpoint. Additional levels of detail can be abstracted BUT need to be clearly explained as to how they work. This is generally where things fall short, with the explanation.

I am perfectly ok with the abstraction as long as I understand what it means to me, the commander.

A perfect example of this just came up in the UV forum, with the ground "Shock" attack option. Having no understanding of the actual impacts, it is probably used by no one therefore probably doesn't even need to be in the game (as a level of detail).

Properly explained, it is probably a great feature. As it sits now (completely unexplainable), it provides no value at all except to provide extra work for the developers to code and test.

Abstraction is perfectly acceptable as long as it is understood clearly and provides us with the ability to deal with things at a much larger scale. Take away the understanding part and you are now left feeling that there is something broken because the result was "x" instead of "y". 90% of the problems with computer war games comes from the developer hiding these calculations. They think they are doing us a service by making the game less complex yet all they are actually doing is increasing the frustration level of the general playing community by making us second guess why "x" happened in the first place. If we clearly understood why "x" might be the result, we would not be calling "x" a bug every two seconds.

I would venture to say that 95% of all posts about all computer wargames are directly aimed at the "x" results (whether is be people complaining about them or people saying that it is unhistorical for "x" to happen, or pointing out that "x" is impossible).

Tell us why "x" happens and the conversations would change into "we think your formula for producing "x" should be adjusted to produce "y" because of these reasons" with a nice long list of historical supporting documentation.

Just my two cents worth...

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 6

- 7/22/2003 2:04:35 AM

Paratrooper

Posts: 272
Joined: 6/15/2003
From: descending on Stockholm
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]I do have a comment I guess (no really :)).[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with Joe, too much detail is a bad thing. :p

_____________________________

Oi maamme, Suomi, synnyinmaa!

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 7

- 7/22/2003 2:50:15 AM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

I am siding with Mr Frag.

I consider myself a tactical wargaming expert primarily because after years of playing board games, and being required to actually learn the processes behind the game just to play it, I can "feel" whether a game is any good.

Some will react that that position is arrogant, I can't help that perception.

I only know that Steel Panthers to be as good a wargame as ASL, must simulate everything that ASL simulates, and be as good at it.

The only difference being, I can click on a unit, and not have to do any of the multitudinous calculations in my head. Ithe screen lays bare every single movement option each and every time it enters a new hex.

Detail doesn't ruin a game, poorly managed detail does.

But some games are just best left simple too.

I would have liked Strategic Command to possess all the detail of A3R, but it is a fine enough game as it is. I am not one of the many gamers absolutely insistent on the designer beating on the program until it is just a clone of A3R.

He might make SC2, but I am not waiting anxiously for it to be done.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 8

- 7/22/2003 3:00:51 AM

Alex Fiedler

Posts: 507
Joined: 7/22/2003
From: Sydney
Status: offline

I agree...

Games should be simple to learn, but difficult to master.

If a game takes too long to learn the basics, its no good.
And if you can master it in an hour, it wont last long.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 9

- 7/22/2003 10:38:31 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

I do understand Mr Frag�s view and agree wholeheartedly � his point about UV is very true.

My point is that an increase in detail increases the enjoyment but where I gave 9 orders per turn before, I still want to give a max of 9 orders per turn.

To some players, if there is an increase in detail, they want an increase in control over those details. But to me that becomes a drudge.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 10

- 7/22/2003 4:09:04 PM

BrubakerII

Posts: 538
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Adelaide Australia
Status: offline

I like (war)games that are simple to 'get in to' but have a level of depth that can be delved into if and when desired. For instance a simple keyboard shortcut ie. ctrl or mouse drag to grab a group of units in order to get them all to do one action. If one desires (ie. if you enjoy the game and want to play iot a lot) then you can individually move a single unit at a time and give it advanced orders.

Les mention Rise of Nations. I found the demo of this intriguing. On the one hand, they have gone to a lot of trouble to 'expand' the Age of Empires program to give more options/complexity. On the other hand, the game simple devolves to a rush for technology and flood the other guy technique that is actually worse than Age :( I can't believe they headed down the right path but ended up at the wrong location :rolleyes:

I'm all for complexity, but I like it 'hidden' behind clever option choices, so that the game is simple enough for all to enjoy, and complex enough for the gognard is nu to want to keep playing to master.

Brubaker

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 11

- 7/22/2003 7:34:03 PM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

Actually Brubaker, I have not yet seen a real time game that involves research and or production of resources/units that doesn't end up in a rush to produce more better faster in some capacity.

In some ways though, that is what "civilization" is about. Don't think so, watch the business news any night of the week hehe.

But it does tend to make any real time game suffer from a sameness.

Now in fairness, a turn based using game is more or less the same thing but in turns and therefore merely slower in resolution.
When I play Civilization, its about more better faster, I am just not as frantic about it getting done. But it dominates the game all the same.

As a game, Rise of Nations is an ok purchase if that game style is your cup of tea.
If you already have a real time civilization building game that goes from ancient times to modern though, you might not find it "different" enough to spend your gaming dollars on it.

It seems the market has more than a few games like Rise of Nations. Some are period specific, others no limtation on time line.
But they all cost good money when released.

The "detail" load in Rise of Nations was not so bad. But even modest detail load can turn off some like me who just ain't interested in playing their game at an enforced pace.
And let's face it, some like me, want to play a game at a slow pace on an afternoon while watching something on tv perhaps (I often play a few moves of Steel Panthers on commercial breaks eh).

Detail is like a sugary sweet. One is not to bad. And you can eat 5 candies in a minute or 5 candies in an hour. If you plan on eat 100 candies though, you might not want to stuff them down your throat in 5 minutes :)

Steel Panthers is a detailed game to some. It takes work to constantly give each and every unit unique new commands each and every turn in some of the larger scenarios.
But there is a difference to playing solid non stop Steel Panthers straight for 5 hours, and just taking your time about playing that campaign 20 minutes here 5 minutes there.

Nothing would get me to play a real time game for 5 solid hours though. 10 minutes in a real time game is a lot more concentration than 10 minutes in a turn based game, where you can stop the action merely by not performing the next action.

But even in turn based, there are limits to how much work I need to go through to make unit X perform it's duty.
I think that is what has kept me from playing Combat Mission.
Nice looking game, to much effort to make a tank do what I want it to do. The 3d image is just not enough perk.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 12

- 7/22/2003 8:26:19 PM

Igotmilk�

Posts: 1698
Joined: 1/10/2001
From: DINGO.us
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]I am siding with Mr Frag.

I consider myself a tactical wargaming expert primarily because after years of playing board games, and being required to actually learn the processes behind the game just to play it, I can "feel" whether a game is any good.

Some will react that that position is arrogant, I can't help that perception.

I only know that Steel Panthers to be as good a wargame as ASL, must simulate everything that ASL simulates, and be as good at it.[/B][/QUOTE]
What if it simulates more, but not everything that ASL does? Or less but is much more fun to play?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]The only difference being, I can click on a unit, and not have to do any of the multitudinous calculations in my head. Ithe screen lays bare every single movement option each and every time it enters a new hex.

Detail doesn't ruin a game, poorly managed detail does.

But some games are just best left simple too.[/B][/QUOTE]
Most, if not all, of the games that are known worldwide and have been tested by time are simple.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]I would have liked Strategic Command to possess all the detail of A3R, but it is a fine enough game as it is. I am not one of the many gamers absolutely insistent on the designer beating on the program until it is just a clone of A3R.

He might make SC2, but I am not waiting anxiously for it to be done. [/B][/QUOTE]

_____________________________

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 13

- 7/22/2003 11:16:23 PM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

You forgot to commit to actually saying something while quoting me Igotmilk hehe.

Sure it is "possible" for a game to exceed ASL.
But hmm, rather than alluding to it being possible, do you have any other actual examples?

"Most, if not all, of the games that are known worldwide and have been tested by time are simple."

What was the point of that remark?
For that matter, is it even a valid factual statement?

Tested by time does not defacto make a game simple. Nor does it being known internationally, make it simple.

A3R and WiF are both known internationally and have been around years. Neither are simple games though.

I can site numerous other examples that refute your claim, but I can't generate a long list that supports it myself.
Therefore I don't understand the "most" in your comment.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 14

- 7/22/2003 11:38:13 PM

Igotmilk�

Posts: 1698
Joined: 1/10/2001
From: DINGO.us
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]You forgot to commit to actually saying something while quoting me Igotmilk hehe.[/B][/QUOTE]
WOW! A cheap shot, and unjustified at that as well. Sorry I dared to disagree with you!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Sure it is "possible" for a game to exceed ASL.
But hmm, rather than alluding to it being possible, do you have any other actual examples?[/B][/QUOTE]
CC2, Chess, Bowling, Poker, Baseball, Solitaire.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]"Most, if not all, of the games that are known worldwide and have been tested by time are simple."

What was the point of that remark?[/B][/QUOTE]
That, as you yourself said, simple games can be fun! And it seems have more appeal, unless the "snob factor" is part of your fun.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]For that matter, is it even a valid factual statement?

Tested by time does not defacto make a game simple. Nor does it being known internationally, make it simple.

A3R and WiF are both known internationally and have been around years. Neither are simple games though.[/B][/QUOTE]
I am not talking about years, I am talking about DECADES and even CENTURIES.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]I can site numerous other examples that refute your claim, but I can't generate a long list that supports it myself.
Therefore I don't understand the "most" in your comment. [/B][/QUOTE]
Please, go ahead and site numerous examples.

Pool, Chess, Soccer, Poker, Mah-Jongg, Baseball, Monopoly, Solitaire, Dominos, Bridge, Hearts, Craps and other Dice games are all simple and have all stood the test of time. I am not sure what A3R and WiF are but I doubt they have been around as long as chess. I could be wrong though! I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to insult me though!

_____________________________

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 15

- 7/23/2003 6:46:58 AM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

Igotmilk you are to interested in an argument to see the obvious.

And no it wasn't a cheap shot (besides I always spend extra if I want to insult someone).

Steel Panthers and ASL has one thing in common, turn based individual unit WW2 tactical warfare.
I was only interested in examples of WW2 turn based individual unit tactical warfare.

So mentioning Backgammon accomplishes absolutely nothing. Not even relevant.

Combat Mission might have been a relevant example in this matter, as it takes the experience to 3d.

The fact you can't identify A3R and WiF means you should go back to Art of Wargaming (weird title for a forum considering the content) or NAMB.

There are only wargamers out here if you hadn't noticed.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 16

- 7/23/2003 11:01:09 AM

Igotmilk�

Posts: 1698
Joined: 1/10/2001
From: DINGO.us
Status: offline

quote:

Igotmilk you are to interested in an argument to see the obvious.

No, actually my point on this topic has been consistent throughout the
years. Whether you wish to discuss this more (ie Call me names and argue
with me) is irrelevant.

quote:

And no it wasn't a cheap shot (besides I always spend extra if I want to
insult someone).

Steel Panthers and ASL has one thing in common, turn based individual unit
WW2 tactical warfare.
I was only interested in examples of WW2 turn based individual unit tactical
warfare.

I'm sorry, I was speaking about games in general. I did not know this was
just about WWII. On question though, if detail and realism are good in a
game then can you give me a detailed and realistic view of a tactical combat
in WWII which was turn based?

quote:

So mentioning Backgammon accomplishes absolutely nothing. Not even relevant.

I think it is relevant. A good game is a good game, a bad game is a bad game
no matter what the setting. Backgammon is as realistic as ASL or SP.

quote:

Combat Mission might have been a relevant example in this matter, as it
takes the experience to 3d.

But it is not fun to play. CC2 is a better example I think, or even several
great flight sims.

quote:

The fact you can't identify A3R and WiF means you should go back to Art of
Wargaming (weird title for a forum considering the content) or NAMB.

There are only wargamers out here if you hadn't noticed.

Ohhhhh! So elitist! I guess it does not matter if the game is fun if it makes you feel better about yourself!

_____________________________

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 17

- 7/23/2003 3:40:03 PM

BrubakerII

Posts: 538
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Adelaide Australia
Status: offline

Les I have to say thanks and :mad: for mentioning Strategic Command. I downloaded the demo and have not stopped playing it since. Die Malta **** you, DIE! I would actually consider buying it except it is too simplistic. It certainly does appeal to me though as a 'High Command' or 'Rise and Fall' clone. I sure wish someone would make such a game today but have complexity and beauty as well.

Matrix????

Brubaker

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 18

- 7/23/2003 7:01:55 PM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

Igotmilk welcome to my ignore list, you are a waste of thread space. Do the same with me if you find it makes you happy.

Oh by the way, go back to Art of Wargaming.

Brubaker, check out the Strategic Command Strategy Guide found through the Battlefront site of a quick link easy to find in the Battlefront sub forum at Wargamer Forums.

You might want to check out the SC forums at Battlefront, but I think you will find all the expert help you will need just reading the guide.
Their forums at Battlefront tend to get silly for stratches of time, so I would not expect you to spend a lot of time there.

I have bad news for you though. If the demo got that response from you, buying the full game will only worsen your condition hehe.
It's one of the safest purchases you will make this year.
Oh, and the commercial version has better patches done to it (minor accuracy issues, the program itself is solid).

Oops edit to include missed you commented on it being to simplistic, add this, the game only "feels" simplistic. Just wait till you try win against a fan of the game hehe. You will be glad there are no more details than are present now hehe.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 19

- 7/23/2003 8:03:02 PM

Igotmilk�

Posts: 1698
Joined: 1/10/2001
From: DINGO.us
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Igotmilk welcome to my ignore list, you are a waste of thread space. Do the same with me if you find it makes you happy.

Oh by the way, go back to Art of Wargaming. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry to bring up some valid points. That is the problem with "Rules Lawyers", they are so temperamental! Doesn't Chiteng do the same when asked a question he does not have the answer to? Haha!

Oops edit to add I did not realize you were too stupid to graduate High-School. Sorry, I did not mean to try and "burst" your bubble. Carry on!

_____________________________

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 20