The great untapped frontier of game design
by Mike Cartier · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 07/23/2002 (12:47 pm) · 6 replies
History
yes i know thats a dirty word in gaming, but history is the great backdrop to 3d gaming thats needed to give any game design depth.
And please don't call Age of Empires a historical based game.
To date there really hasn't been a good webbased , realtime 3d historically based wargame.
faithful to both the strategic, tactical and other histories of the timeperiod of the game.
they fall into either wargame or RTS styles both of which lose something in the translation of history in a game.
Why is it historical games turn out so damn dry and dull while other games come off so goofy, why is it so hard to strike the balance needed to make a good playable, enjoyable history based game?
The only way I see it happening is when the traditional game styles and boundaries are ignored.
RTS, wargame system, graphix technology, playable interface and modern internet multiplayer capabilities have to merge.
RPG elements have to be introduced, resource management system has to be revamped top be more of an assistance to the history of the game rather than the weak link for bypassing the system to win.
Until a perstant wargaming world exists, history will be hard to simulate in such a way.
I see the future of online gaming in recreation of historical and fantasy environments that attempt to realisticly and faithfully recreate almost real situations.
The added utility of Massive multiplayer historical worlds is they can easily be revamped to simulate a new aspect of history.
what was the last great history based game you played ?
yes i know thats a dirty word in gaming, but history is the great backdrop to 3d gaming thats needed to give any game design depth.
And please don't call Age of Empires a historical based game.
To date there really hasn't been a good webbased , realtime 3d historically based wargame.
faithful to both the strategic, tactical and other histories of the timeperiod of the game.
they fall into either wargame or RTS styles both of which lose something in the translation of history in a game.
Why is it historical games turn out so damn dry and dull while other games come off so goofy, why is it so hard to strike the balance needed to make a good playable, enjoyable history based game?
The only way I see it happening is when the traditional game styles and boundaries are ignored.
RTS, wargame system, graphix technology, playable interface and modern internet multiplayer capabilities have to merge.
RPG elements have to be introduced, resource management system has to be revamped top be more of an assistance to the history of the game rather than the weak link for bypassing the system to win.
Until a perstant wargaming world exists, history will be hard to simulate in such a way.
I see the future of online gaming in recreation of historical and fantasy environments that attempt to realisticly and faithfully recreate almost real situations.
The added utility of Massive multiplayer historical worlds is they can easily be revamped to simulate a new aspect of history.
what was the last great history based game you played ?
#2
"I see the future of online gaming in recreation of historical and fantasy environments that attempt to realisticly and faithfully recreate almost real situations."
seriously.... who the heck would want to do this? I love starcraft, play like two hours a day, but I would hate to go to Westpoint... it seems like a lot of people want to sacrifice imagination for reality, but I would like to argue that its the imagination in games that make them fun and interesting....... I mean if we go on this track we will eventualy be reduced to yard work sim, local grociery store bag boy RPG, reshingle your roof with a nail gun fps.... I'd really like to see the new frontier in gaming be one of creativity and imagination.... try and go in the opisite direction, make something that no one has ever seen before.... with games we have the unique opportunity to creat something truly original (a lot of people have forgotten what that means).... so come on guys, lets try and raise the bar a little..... use your imaginations
07/25/2002 (11:21 am)
this is a little off topic, but for a while now many people have been calling for more "realistic" games.... a lot of people seem to have the attitude that more realistic means more fun.... this is a prime example "I see the future of online gaming in recreation of historical and fantasy environments that attempt to realisticly and faithfully recreate almost real situations."
seriously.... who the heck would want to do this? I love starcraft, play like two hours a day, but I would hate to go to Westpoint... it seems like a lot of people want to sacrifice imagination for reality, but I would like to argue that its the imagination in games that make them fun and interesting....... I mean if we go on this track we will eventualy be reduced to yard work sim, local grociery store bag boy RPG, reshingle your roof with a nail gun fps.... I'd really like to see the new frontier in gaming be one of creativity and imagination.... try and go in the opisite direction, make something that no one has ever seen before.... with games we have the unique opportunity to creat something truly original (a lot of people have forgotten what that means).... so come on guys, lets try and raise the bar a little..... use your imaginations
#3
With several layers of data collection and use in the game you can save the stats from nights of gameplay and have them append to your account. That way the battling would be for the time you play the game, when you log off your stats are saved and when you come back to play again your stats are plugged in and you start with the basic stuff you had before.
The hold you territories battlesfield maps would only last as long as the players in the campaign room.
To answer the charge that realistic gameplay is not fun, i say nuts! gameplay is about the design of the gameplay, you have to balance the history (use it as a guide) with the play mechanics of the game.
Historical battle tactics is not tedious, you just don't like it becasue you can't find some dumb resource management trick to win or some cheap rush technique either. That shit has been doine to death.
07/25/2002 (12:59 pm)
ok well to answer the first comment about a persistant world and what that would mean to the gameplay, i think you are not thinking creatively enough.With several layers of data collection and use in the game you can save the stats from nights of gameplay and have them append to your account. That way the battling would be for the time you play the game, when you log off your stats are saved and when you come back to play again your stats are plugged in and you start with the basic stuff you had before.
The hold you territories battlesfield maps would only last as long as the players in the campaign room.
To answer the charge that realistic gameplay is not fun, i say nuts! gameplay is about the design of the gameplay, you have to balance the history (use it as a guide) with the play mechanics of the game.
Historical battle tactics is not tedious, you just don't like it becasue you can't find some dumb resource management trick to win or some cheap rush technique either. That shit has been doine to death.
#4
a) something like an Starcraft ladder system, except resources and territory are figured into the mix as well, and battles are fought as single battles with little use of actuall strategy outside of a given battle.
b) something like Shattered Galexy, where you are part of or the leader of a large faction fighting for large amounts of territory on a team system. This can be extreamly hard to play and design.
Lastly, you sound bitter about something... but I can't figure out what. The thing is that almost all games, including RTSs are made up certain rules. There are people that will learn how to break these rules no matter how well balanced you think they are, and this is especially true in an RTS, because a lot of the time you don't really have time to think about your situation before you're in a horrible downward spiral. You just have to know how it's played and do it well.
The thing is that you'll never get a fully realistic RTS even if you could find a way to make it fun. Diplomacy and rules of engagement make too much of a diffence
07/25/2002 (1:43 pm)
That makes it more like a ladder game than a persistent world RTS. With lands being added and subtracted that much, you'd have to work it on a skirmish by skirmish basis, not on a grand war scale anyway. This leaves you with two options:a) something like an Starcraft ladder system, except resources and territory are figured into the mix as well, and battles are fought as single battles with little use of actuall strategy outside of a given battle.
b) something like Shattered Galexy, where you are part of or the leader of a large faction fighting for large amounts of territory on a team system. This can be extreamly hard to play and design.
Lastly, you sound bitter about something... but I can't figure out what. The thing is that almost all games, including RTSs are made up certain rules. There are people that will learn how to break these rules no matter how well balanced you think they are, and this is especially true in an RTS, because a lot of the time you don't really have time to think about your situation before you're in a horrible downward spiral. You just have to know how it's played and do it well.
The thing is that you'll never get a fully realistic RTS even if you could find a way to make it fun. Diplomacy and rules of engagement make too much of a diffence
#5
a) Combat Mission is an excellent 3D, realtime (resolution, orders are given in turns), combat simulation that is very historically, technically and tactically correct.
b) Annihiliation had a "ladder-but-grab-terrain-instead" tournament shortly after it came out. In fact, I took it as inspiration for a similiar idea for Tribes2, which found no supporters and thus was trashed (I couldn't have done it on my own).
07/30/2002 (12:21 pm)
Two comments/pointers to things that have, indeed, been done:a) Combat Mission is an excellent 3D, realtime (resolution, orders are given in turns), combat simulation that is very historically, technically and tactically correct.
b) Annihiliation had a "ladder-but-grab-terrain-instead" tournament shortly after it came out. In fact, I took it as inspiration for a similiar idea for Tribes2, which found no supporters and thus was trashed (I couldn't have done it on my own).
Torque Owner Jeff Ward
The problem with persistent world RTS is this: you can't leave it. Well you could leave it, if you didn't mind your territories getting taken over while you were gone...
With most MMORPGs when you leave your character disapears and it's all good. There's no real fear of loosing anything (with the exceptions of certain games that allow people to rob your house). With a persitent RTS this could be a problem. You could try team based like Shattered Gallexy did, but that didn't work *that* ell. Things just went back and forth every so often. That could be a political statement about the nature of war, but i don't think so.
To make a truely realistic persistent world RTS, you'd have to ship yourself off to the war for several years and basically be "on call" as a general. You'd not only have to worry about supply lines, but troop morale, recon, enimy movement, special ops, food consumption, pay to soldiers, home land support for the war, the availablity of new troops, supply lines, cargo drops, terrain, the relative experience of your troups....
There are reasons they have schools specially for this. There's a point when you just don't want to worry about that stuff when you're playing a game.
Maybe I'm reading your idea wrong though. Kinda went back and forth between wanting a more realisitc play system, to an MMORTS, to wanting to base a game off history. Which one is it?