 |
| |
|
|
Craig P.
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune A good game is not about being in control as a matter of course. If you want to be in control, you should have to work for it, like in Chess. |
But that was never the complaint about the Emrich design. In chess, you may not be in complete control of the outcome of the game, but you can always see the influence of your moves. The complaint about "not enough control" in the Emrich design was that it wasn't always clear what the effect of your decisions was. That's a different kind of lack of control.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asmodean
|
 |
Aarhus, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
But this is what I am saying. Normal people play Combat Mission, Europa Universalis, Matrix Games, ...
Why do you think average people must be lazy? I don´t have much respect for companies that prefer to cater to the lazy and superficial...
As I see it, Mr. Emrich had a higher opinion of normal people than the QS management... |
You keep on bashing 90% of the gamebuying people out there. I'm not saying that they're lazy. I'm not saying that they're superficial.
What I am saying is that, they are people who have kids, jobs, midterms, exams, gardens to tend to, parties to go to, and all the other stuff that might keep you away from being able to play MoO3 for most of the time. That is why games need to be accessible. They need to be deep, yet easy to learn. And they need to be this, because otherwise people will not find them funny. And what they do not find funny, they do not buy, or they do not recommend to friends and relatives. But I'm sure you know these things, CT, so why keep trolling? 
Asmodean
[EDIT] Just before there was a box around quotes. Now there is none. Me thinks that MarkG is playing around with the quote script  [/EDIT]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kalbear
|
|
According to whom? Unless you're Emrich, or better yet, one of the folks that playtested the game back in April, how the hell would you know?
That's your guess. It's an uninformed, specious guess at best. Considering the fact that we've had feedback from people who, oh, I don't know, PLAY THE GAME, and they told us that this was a common complaint about the game at the time, you can choose to believe a couple different things:
1) The people responsible for this design decided that it was not, as a rule, a good game mechanic and decided to nix it in favor of something they believed better, based on feedback.
2) The people responsible for the design could not implement it. Which from all accounts is patently false - nonetheless, you can believe these people are all lying to you.
3) The people responsible for this design found it fun, good, and cried bitterly when having to cut it. Again, this is not what's been stated, but you are welcome to believe they are all liars.
What I find really perplexing is the amount of time that CT spends bashing this game, considering that he isn't going to buy the thing. Heck, he's not even _played_ it. I'd understand if it was Civ 3 after release. *****ing about how the game works, how you don't like it, that sort of thing, when you have spent the money and time into the game...but you've spent nothing on Moo3. Not one dime, unless you're an IG shareholder or investor. If you have no interest in the game, and you have only derision for a product that you've never seen or used and only have out-of-date information to base your opinions on, why spend the time?
Honestly. I'm quite curious what drives people to do this sort of thing.
My rationale is that the more bashing I can defuse and the more hype I can generate about this game, the more intelligent players will play Moo3, which in turn generates a bigger fanbase to play MP with, create mods for, talk strategies with. In other words, I am betting that it's a good game and am encouraging the environment that a good game can have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
(Simcity married to Gary Grigsby´s Pacific War) in Space. Would be the perfect game, imo. |
Pac War was a great game no doubt. I think part of what we are seeing here is the passing of the generation raised on complex wargames. Alan Emerich was one of us, but apparently there aren't enough of us for some of these larger companies to bother with. Of course they would like to trick us into buying their crap (see Civ 3) by mouthing the right catch phrases, but in the end they want a beer and pretzels game to sell to an increasingly beer and pretzels market. In one sense I don't mind people catering to their market, it is after all their job. What I resent is their attempt to sell me on a game that has no soul, no intellectual depth etc. while claiming the exact opposite.
Fortunately there are smaller companies that are still willing to cater to those of us who like to take some time to think while we play. I have been particularly impressed with Europa Universalis. From its board game roots, Paradox has taken this game and turned it into an amazing real time strategy game with both simplicity and depth. It is very moddable, has multiplayer that works, and has been very well supported after completion. I only hope that they "keep on keepin' on", and more companies seek to emulate their dedication to quality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ashbery
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kalbear
1) The people responsible for this design decided that it was not, as a rule, a good game mechanic and decided to nix it in favor of something they believed better, based on feedback.
|
Bullcrap, this was decided after infogrames told them to change it and make it for MR/MRS SIMPLETON and this change was brought on by CIV3 retail succes, dont be fooled by people who lie and tell you otherwise, i have good sources BTW.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rantz
|
|
Southern CA
May 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ashbery
Bullcrap, this was decided after infogrames told them to change it and make it for MR/MRS SIMPLETON and this change was brought on by CIV3 retail succes, dont be fooled by people who lie and tell you otherwise, i have good sources BTW. |
having been in the meetings, I can promise that it wasn't an IG marketing driven desicion and that the 'mass market' was never the driving factor in the refocus of the game.
CIV3 played NO part in ANY design choice that mas made on the game, and the entire refocus of the game was to make it a cohesive gameplay experience rather than a bunch of disparate elements that sounded really good on paper, but had no feeling of importance or being part of a greater whole or gameplay experience.
But, again, the facts tend to ruin conspiracy and the overwhelming desire to believe that greater evil forces are out to muck with anything you care about, so feel free to ignore the facts ash.
let me know if you still feel like it's a 'simpleton' game after playing it.
oh, and for the record "opressometer"? that actual label and name is ALL the doing of Mr. Emrich. Was from the start. So, again, pesky facts getting in the way...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rantz
having been in the meetings, I can promise that it wasn't an IG marketing driven desicion and that the 'mass market' was never the driving factor in the refocus of the game.
CIV3 played NO part in ANY design choice that mas made on the game, and the entire refocus of the game was to make it a cohesive gameplay experience rather than a bunch of disparate elements that sounded really good on paper, but had no feeling of importance or being part of a greater whole or gameplay experience.
But, again, the facts tend to ruin conspiracy and the overwhelming desire to believe that greater evil forces are out to muck with anything you care about, so feel free to ignore the facts ash.
let me know if you still feel like it's a 'simpleton' game after playing it.
oh, and for the record "opressometer"? that actual label and name is ALL the doing of Mr. Emrich. Was from the start. So, again, pesky facts getting in the way... |
"I have good sources" = "I made it up and it sounds good"
There...does this make it easier for you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ashbery
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
"I have good sources" = "I made it up and it sounds good"
There...does this make it easier for you? |
Then my good sources made it up then, because i was told that the old design would've worked but they changed design focus and alan was sacked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rantz
Not that I don't want to mind you, but again, easy to extrapolate and make assumptions when you don't have all the facts.
mind you, I understand what it's like to extrapolate when you don't have the facts. I've done it plenty myself. But, there are details and information that you do not have that make your statements and assumptions erroneous. |
Rantz: I recommend your polite and balanced answer.  And, yes, point taken, there may have conceivably been problems with the original design I do not know about.
So I propose an alternative -and very un-conspiracy-like- theory of what happened: You reacted to a majority of the playtesters, who found the game confusing.
In my opinion, what you should have done is: Fire the playtesters. 
Nah, I´m not being capricious here; let me explain:
The purpose of a maze is to be confusing. The purpose of a good strategy game -at least according to SOME of us- is to be maze-like. Me thinks the play-testers didn´t understand this. But that does not at all mean there wouldn´t have been a market for this sort of game. So, seriously: Instead of replacing Mr. Emrich, I believe you would have better replaced the testers with people understanding his approach. Or simply told them: 'Confusing? GREAT!! We are getting there!'
Playtesters only exist to remove the bugs. They do not exist to remove the vision.
By streamlining everything, I think you destroyed the maze. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rantz
|
|
Southern CA
May 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
In my opinion, what you should have done is: Fire the playtesters.
:::snippety::::
By streamlining everything, I think you destroyed the maze. |
Again, I can understand your assumption. The folks who analyzed the game at 'initial alpha' were not just random playtesters. It wasn't given to a 'testing group' at that stage. It was an internal review, done by folks who had experience in completing games from start to finish, and folks who had been consultants in making sure we were 'true to MOO', members of the design team who had been there since day one, as well as grognard associates looked at it and basically all came to the same conclusion.
A game (sims included here) is all about action=/forums/reaction. If the player changes 5 settings and there is no discernable *associated* reaction or change, then the gameplay feedback mechanism fails and the player, no matter how hardcore, question whether they are actually playing the game and having any impact on it's development, or if stuff is just happening regardless.
In a Sim, it's establishing the conditions (at the very basic core gameplay element) however complex you make that, and however many detailed knobs and levers you put in, that is the core mechanic. From there reactions should occur based on the parameters you've set and you should have *some* idea of a.) something happening because you set a condition, and b.) feedback both good and bad in regards to the success of the condition set.
MOO3, prior to the refocus of the design did *not* have a sense of cause and effect that was clear enough for even those of us working on it, and KNEW what was going on under the hood. If you know the formulas, and that's the case, well there is a problem at hand.
Some individuals griped about the changes, and their griping is understandable since you always take it personally if something you worked on doesn't make it into a final product. God knows in my history in the gaming industry I've had too many counts where something I really sweated over and poured my heart into didn't make it into the game, and I know the gut reaction (because I've certainly said it at times) is "FOOLS!!! It would have been brilliant!"
and then, 4 months later, when my ego has healed, I realize "crap, they were right that would have totally not fit in the game, and would have just been a feature for the sake of having a feature. Note because it would have actually worked in the game."
Again, proof is in the product. MOO3 is far from simplistic. Haven't had any complaints from any grognards who have played it that it is even slightly on the simplistic or dumbed down side, and in our external invite beta group, we made sure to invite some folks that we knew were the type to scream loudly if we had betrayed the franchise, the spirit, or the depth of MOO.
Will *you* feel that way upon playing it? We'll find out soon enough
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rantz
|
|
Southern CA
May 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vee4473
One question, were these cause and effect deficiencies just discovered? Which seems very odd, since the game has been in beta testing for a while i gather.
Or were they discovered long ago and it is just taking longer to redo? |
the eval phase occured back in March/April of this year, hence the refocusiing of the design. All of the rework in terms of causality was completed by the end of April.
So, no we're not discovering that now...LOL
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kalbear
|
|
Well, again, this is kind of expected behavior.
When you have basically a finished product - the features are there, the code is basically done, etc, and you make some heavy design changes, it can be often harder than simply starting from scratch. Even if it isn't harder, it's a lot of work. There's the dev work that has to revisit code and change a whole lot of it, make sure things work according to the new design - which also has to be done. New graphics need to be implemented and moved about. That sort of thing.
And then there's test. A lot of the previous testing basically gets thrown out the window. All the regression needs to get run, creating all manner of bugs and issues. New tests need to be thought up to test the new design, new stress needs to be done.
And all the effort on manual testing? That's basically wasted.
Add to this that they weren't in the final testing phases of the game yet - that was work that they've basically gotten into recently - and I can see it taking 8 months. When this happened to Half-Life, for instance, it took another year to release.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-01-2003 00:49
Mr. Emrich´s highly acclaimed boardgame doesn´t at all look to me like 'a bunch of disparate elements'. Perhaps you should have given him some more time to finish his draft?
Attachment: 
Note that even the blind alleys serve a purpose.
Attachment: 
|
