|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
CIRARIC = A Computergame isnt real-life, and real-life isnt a computergame.
An example: In action-games like Quake and Half-life the developers dont even *try* to imitate exact human behaviour in order to pick up a weapon. The player simply runs over the ammo/weapon that lies on the floor. He hears a pick-up confirmation sound - but thats about it.
By comparison; the developers of a action-game called Trespasser (may it rest in peace) the player had to "physically" navigate an arm/hand in order to grab (and aim) a weapon.
The result was directly contra-productive in terms of both effectiveness and real-life realism. That game actually felt LESS realistic by this approach.
Sense moral: In order to imitate reality (also in games like Ctp2/Civ3), its often more effective to work with pre-understood assumptions, then trying to pedantically translate each and every real life aspect physically on to the world-map or 3D game-screen.
------------------------------------------------------
LIPAJIW = Let increased play-value alone justify increased [game-developing] workload.
Explanation: If an upgrade-suggestion demands really drastic and principally different design overhauls compared to the original game - but in the end gives no, or only insignificantly increased actual fun- and play-value in return; then its probably better to skip that suggestion all together.
Above rule should however be for any game-developing team what salt is for the cook:
Adding *too much* of the rule, and you end up with a reductional emaciated design approach, where the under-the-hood game parameters in the follow-up, is more or less identical compared to the original game.
A really sad example of this is the upgrade from Sim City 2000 to 3000. I *know* the game was a economical success, but from a game-upgrade point of view, it was pretty lame.
On the other hand - adding *too little*, and you stuck with an overbloated "Frankensteins monster" of a game there the team gave in to unrealistic demands from the fans in trying to squeeze a whole real-life world of complex AI-burdening parameters into the game.
Sense moral: Too much and too little ruins everything!
------------------------------------------------------
KYD = Kill your darlings.
In the art-world theres an expression that says: every artist must know when its time to "kill your darlings". By this they mean, that he must know then it time to stop repaint and overpaint the same favourite painting over and over again, and instead thinking *overall* and *ahead*.
Explanation: Of *most* importance of both CTP-2 and Civ-3 is the general quality-feel, the AI-responsiveness and the overall FUN-factor. Please guys try to understand this! These games doesnt automatically become "useless crap" just because your particullar little pet-idea wasnt implemented.
------------------------------------------------------
KISS = Keep it simple stupid.
I quote Croxis from an old Civ-3 post regarding the KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple Stupid):
"If your really cool idea takes very long to explain then it probably would be way to hard to explain it to a new gamer. Also, when trying to find a solution to a problem its probably best to change what is already currently in Civ-2 then trying to add more to the game (information overload)".
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 01, 2000).]
|
01-11-2000 23:52
|
|