 |
| |
|
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
This was posted yesterday at Delphi forums by Bill Fisher:
quote:
It's here at long last. We have all of the major pieces assembled, and we're playing through the game. Our focus has turned from designing the game to fine-tuning what we have and making sure we have a polished, smooth end-user experience. As we've always done, I'd like to share with everyone the philosophy behind what we're doing and what you're likely to see in the game as a result.
We've been working closely with the folks at Infogrames to play the game and evaluate what's working and what's not. The good news is that we all agree on our evaluations. We've independently come to the conclusion that there's just too much going on at the start of the game and that we need to streamline the play experience. The better news is that we also have a pretty clear idea of how we're going to achieve that, and it's not too difficult to do. I'll give just a brief summary now, with the intent of bringing out more detailed information once we've had another week or so to fine-tune these plans.
For starters, we realized that we've been designing a game that's really cool and deep at advanced levels of play. We've created AI-based helpers to build your ships, move your fleets, fight your battles, and manage your planets. That's incredibly helpful in a big game and addresses one of the biggest concerns that advanced players have mentioned about MOO2 and other similar games. But we've now come to the conclusion that we've actually done _too much_ for the players, and that the resulting lack of things to do is causing folks to feel a certain lack of control or lack of immersion during the early turns of the game. Fortunately, there are easy ways to deal with this that don't involve significant changes to the game design.
Secondly, we've also found that a few of the cool-sounding elements of the design worked better on paper than they do in code. That happens sometimes. We've designed some really interesting systems that proved either hard to understand or hard to present effectively to the user. Those are being simplified or removed. These are not core systems, but rather elements of the game that are not absolutely critical to play. You still have ships, fleets, task forces, star lanes, lots of planets, diplomacy, and so on. For the most part, you won't even realize they're not in the game.
Finally, we want to streamline the user interface. There's so much on the main screen that people are getting scared the first time they open up the game. That's not what we intended, and it doesn't have to be that way. We realized that the wonderful "everything at your fingertips" design was overly broad and showed too much at once, so we're moving some elements around, putting others in more logical places, and generally reducing the number of individual buttons on the main screen. You'll see mockups of a much more elegant screen design as soon as we can settle on the layout. Short version of the story is that we've been able to keep the breadth of control without overwhelming you with buttons.
Rantz and Cory are very busy at the moment, working on the UI issues and making sure the programmers have a clear idea of where we're headed. Over the next few weeks, we'll be happy to answer questions and explain the latest refinements in more detail. Rest assured, though, that the core of the game hasn't changed. We're editing and refining what we have and making sure it's going to provide the best possible end-user experience. We all want the best game possible, and I'm very pleased that Infogrames wants that as well and is willing to extend our delivery date in order to make sure that happens. We all believe very much in the game and look forward to sharing it with you as soon as we can. Thanks again for your support and enthusiasm.
Bill Fisher, Executive Producer |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
|
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
And something more:
quote:
I understand your concerns, but I can assure you that MOO3 is still a very deep, involved galaxy-level strategy game and is certainly not being dumbed down to appease the "mass market."
You still have hundreds of stars, potentially thousands of planets, ship design, diplomacy that's far deeper than anything else we've seen, and more.
You still have, at last count, roughly 100 different interface screens with all sorts of cool information to explore.
What we're doing is trimming the stuff that even hard-core gamers were finding confusing, overly complex, or simply not interesting enough. If it sounds like we're taking away everything in the game, I'm sorry for the confusion. We're not. There's still a huge amount of stuff in the game. What we're doing is taking the raw materials and refining them into a smoothly playing, properly paced gaming experience. In many cases, that simply means moving things around so they're either easier to find or more obvious to use.
Bill Fisher, Executive Producer |
and more (this is new to me):
quote:
Actually, I think we mentioned a while back that events were not going to be player-initiated. That's actually not a new change to the design. It's been that way for several months now. But I haven't read everything that's been announced, so it's possible that wasn't mentioned.
Once again, we found player-controlled events to be a neat idea that didn't quite fit. There are still a variety of events, and they are in fact somewhat influenced by your playing style, but they're not initiated by humans like the "event cards" originally envisioned. I thought that would be cool, but in the end it was not to be.
So yes, there will still be events (quite a few of them, actually), but no, they won't be player-initiated.
Bill Fisher, Executive Producer |
So long EVENT engine.
(never liked it anyway)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:18
|
|
Is anyone else concerned at the loss of the IFPs? This idea was at the heart of what the game was trying to accomplish - "You can't do everything" - and having to come up with a means to make the game more of a macromanagement affair at this late stage can't be easy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
COND0010
|
|
Minnesota
Apr 2002
time: 05:18
|
|
I am very glad that the tuning phase will last until 3rd quarter (end of). They really are taking the time to ensure that all the importe\ant aspects of game play are addressed.
IFP's gone? Alan Emrich was the major backer of IFP's. With him at the helm (and with his experiences as a board/computer game player) I am sure he will have other ways to deal with the issues that caused the game to have IFP's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WashuMasaki
|
|
Georgia
Apr 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
I prefer IFPs to be gone... mainly because my thinking tends to go against the "can't mentality"
I dislike "You can't do everything" and much prefer "You don't HAVE to do everything"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tinmaddog
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by COND0010
I am very glad that the tuning phase will last until 3rd quarter (end of). They really are taking the time to ensure that all the importe\ant aspects of game play are addressed.
IFP's gone? Alan Emrich was the major backer of IFP's. With him at the helm (and with his experiences as a board/computer game player) I am sure he will have other ways to deal with the issues that caused the game to have IFP's. |
From the things I have heard, Alan is no longer at the helm - Rantz is. Alan seems to be there now for name value alone.
Now, this is not the bad thing it might have been - it is like having #5 substituting in for #1 out of a field of 1,000. Your starting pitcher is not always the best at the end game. Still, if it were up to me, I would have Alan in there. But, I am neither management nor part owner.
Someone else asked if anyone else missed IFP's. I certainly do not. I think that they were simply one available mechanism whose implementation turned out to be harder than they thought.
And to be blunt, spending an IFP to see / affect a space battle is one of the more profoundly dumb things I have ever heard. I mean, this may be a "5x" game but the reason most will want it / buy it is the fun of the combat.
tmd
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bleyn
|
|
I didn't even know that they were going to try tagging MoO3 with a particular designer's name. Seems sort of silly to me though, in some ways.
I mean, its not like their was such an association on either of the other two MoOs. Almost makes me think that it is something that a marketting person decided that the game absolutely needed and nobody could convince otherwise.
*Sigh*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
As for me, I am sad IFPs are gone for 2 reasons:
1) We won't know if it could have worked.
2) It would have led to more choices, and faster games. It was also more realistic. You cannot manage everything in real life. Or are all those real-world bureaucrats, advisors, ministers, generals absolutely useless?
We could have had to choose between attacking efficiently the opponent or quenching a revolt but not both.
But I am quite happy events are no longer triggered by players.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
As for me, I am sad IFPs are gone for 2 reasons:
1) We won't know if it could have worked. |
They seem to have dropped it for gameplay reasons and on feedback from testing. I would guess it wasn't working.
I suppose I would guess that anyway.quote:
2) It would have led to more choices, and faster games. |
All signs show it to be LIMITING choices in the interest of faster MULTIPLAY. How much interest would that have to those most interested in the singleplayer game?
If they do the job right on the governors players will now have the ability to choose for themselves what level of managment they want to engage in. That sounds good to me.
I am wondering about the tech tree though. It sounds like its dumbed down. If I wan'ted to play Spaceward Ho I would install it.
I admit that what I want is an upgrade of MOO 2. Competent governors. Better diplomacy. Enhanced spying. Trade. Improved graphic.
No Darloks! They were my running dogs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spectrex
|
|
Arlington, VA, USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
I don't know why you guys are so sad about IFPs going out... It just seems kind of strange to me that a game developer would force me to adopt a particular style or play a certain way. Why not let the player choose for himself?
IMHO SE IV Gold was pretty much the pinnacle of what you can do with the 4x model, and in my mind it was perfect but for some AI issues and somewhat dated graphics. If MOO3 is just an SEIV rehash with better graphics and AI that's actually INTELLIGENT I'd be happy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
In real life the people that you delgate things to can be fired for incompetence. Heck the Reagan administration had two cabinet secretaries swap jobs.
Did the IFP system allow me to fire the AI and replace it with one more to my liking?
Think of it as them now being pre-fired.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
madmario
|
 |
Ithaca, NY
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
I liked the IFP idea A LOT for a number of reasons.
1) When the AI beat me up, I would know it wasn't because I didn't micomanage enough before (i.e. I can allow myself to enjoy the game and not have to clickfest to efficiency all the time).
2) I know that even if the governors are incompentent, they are equally incompetent for everyone and everyone has to deal with them.
3) If they worked, they would guarantee that pacing was solid in the game.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY:
4) They were an evolutionary concept, an insured the game would not just be a rehashing. It had potential to be different than SEIV or Moo2 or really, ANY EMPIRE GAME I know of. They had the potential to draw people into the hobby who wouldn't normally be able to enjoy it. The game model was a different one with IFP's. A game done in that model has yet to be made; and done well, it could be a real winner.
Now, they were probably dropped because they couldn't get them to work. Too bad.
-mario
Last edited by madmario on 14-04-2002 at 07:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlequiin
|
|
i really dont like that they have taken all that content out of moo3... i love games that give you a huge amount of options, even if its an option ill rarely use thats a good thing because if i want to use it its there... taking out the IFP and changing all the leaders into a council has totally changed what the game is... previously you were a guiding force behind an empire guiding its general direction... and now we are back at square one as a dictater whose rule is supreme and who spends a 3 hours micromanaging a single turn becuase thats what you have to do in order to have the edge over your oponants. condensing the leaders has taken a fairly large chunk out of possible espionage operations.. now what are we going to use as moles? if there were to many and they were overwhelming just have a system of tagging leaders who you especially favor or want removed so you can keep track of them... same with systems, tag key systems and whammo you can keep track of all the important stuff going on. blah.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlequiin
|
|
erm... imperial focus points. a key part (USED to be a key part) of what set this game apart from others as being unique and innovotive (although it has been done before by some other game ive fergotten the name of, some ps1 game that has to do with ghengis kharn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roalan
|
|
Newton,Ma.U.S.A.
Nov 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
Interesting,but what does imperial focus points mean or do for you??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roalan
|
|
Newton,Ma.U.S.A.
Nov 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
Understood-to tell the truth I do not think i would like IFP. Moo2 did not have IFP and I like that game. Civ 2-3 doesn't have it.
Now 3R 4th ED and Advance 3R has a partical IFP and it is very good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
roalan
|
|
Newton,Ma.U.S.A.
Nov 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
Advance Third Reich and Third Reich 4th Ed. are board war games,made by The Avalon Hill Game Co. There are many games of this type on the Market though most are not as complicated as The Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. An easier game could be The Russian Campaign.,Midway,etc, the list goes on and on . There is also several societies where one can compete with gamers all over the US or world. A.R.E.A. or AHIKS . Human players are much better then any computer and THERE ARE NO BUGS in board games.I am playing 3R 4th Ed. with three other players in the same game and this is much better then any computer game in existance. I am also playing two other 3R games and a Russian Campaign game .There is no stupid AI in a board War Game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
THERE ARE NO BUGS in board games. |
Yeah Right. No one has ever had a discussion bordering on a fight over ambiguous rules. Ambiguous rules are bugs.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2002 18:29
wasn't something like leaders that could be replaced by you?
|