Murphy's Law as a gameplay element
by Macgiants · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 05/29/2005 (11:27 pm) · 31 replies
Hi everyone,
I've been working on a game design document in my spare time recently, mostly just for fun and to see if I can come up with something that I'd actually be happy with. What I've been writing up so far is mostly a team based FPS game with vehicles, weapons, etc. - Battlefield 1942 comes to mind, although I'm adding in some elements that will (hopefully) make it notably different.
One of the ideas is to add in an element of Murphy's Law to the gameplay - that is, if anything can go wrong, it will.
This means adding the ability for things to go wrong for the player(s) in the game. For example, in an FPS game, this could mean that when you jump into a vehicle it takes 15 seconds for it to actually start up. Or, when you fire a guided missle at someone, it misses, turns around, and homes in on you. Or that EMP mine that you dropped goes off randomly some time later, shutting down some of your teammates tanks that were defending your base. Just possible occurrences of things that could go wrong randomly, satisfying the first part of Murphy's Law, that anything can go wrong.
There's quite a bit more that I've been thinking about in regards to this concept, but I just wanted to get some feedback on this first part to see if this is a good idea to explore further - as in, could this make gameplay more interesting and more fun to play? Or is it just adding in another layer of complexity that will just make a game more frustrating for the player?
I've been working on a game design document in my spare time recently, mostly just for fun and to see if I can come up with something that I'd actually be happy with. What I've been writing up so far is mostly a team based FPS game with vehicles, weapons, etc. - Battlefield 1942 comes to mind, although I'm adding in some elements that will (hopefully) make it notably different.
One of the ideas is to add in an element of Murphy's Law to the gameplay - that is, if anything can go wrong, it will.
This means adding the ability for things to go wrong for the player(s) in the game. For example, in an FPS game, this could mean that when you jump into a vehicle it takes 15 seconds for it to actually start up. Or, when you fire a guided missle at someone, it misses, turns around, and homes in on you. Or that EMP mine that you dropped goes off randomly some time later, shutting down some of your teammates tanks that were defending your base. Just possible occurrences of things that could go wrong randomly, satisfying the first part of Murphy's Law, that anything can go wrong.
There's quite a bit more that I've been thinking about in regards to this concept, but I just wanted to get some feedback on this first part to see if this is a good idea to explore further - as in, could this make gameplay more interesting and more fun to play? Or is it just adding in another layer of complexity that will just make a game more frustrating for the player?
#22
I think the implementation described above (where it randomly happens) is gameplay suicide. Think of the last game you played where a platform that looked stable fell and killed you, or an enemy hit you with a 1-hit kill rocket from offscreen. And these were just gameplay issues, how about those places in a level where you can see a platform, but the collision map does not allow standing on it (Jak and Metroid are major examples), so you slide down the invisible wall and fall in lava or something.
What you are saying is that these unexpected things are now part of the gameplay. That's like saying "its not a bug, its a feature". When I press the "Fire a Rocket" button, I expect that rocket to launch the same way every time. If every ten rockets I fire, one turns around at me, I will blame the designer for making an element that I cannot avoid. If it only happens one out of a hundred, I will think its a bug.
However, consider this option, inspired by a recent game of Shadows Over Camelot that I played:
The gameplay mechanic requires collaboration between players, sharing weapons, helping maintain vehicles, etc. If you need a rocket launcher, you need to go to the player who has the rocket launcher (it doesn't just spawn) and request the launcher from him. Now, there is a chance that one player is a "traitor", who has the option of sabotaging the weapon before giving it to you, or breaking the vehicles instead of fixing them. That traitor gets points for how many of his teammates are killed without him dying. Periodically, of course, the traitor would have to change (at respawn).
So, if you want the rocket launcher, but you get it from the traitor, it may backfire in the way that you described. Or, in the middle of a major firefight, the team needs to retreat, but the traitor has disabled the transport vehicle.
In this way, you have added a strategy to the gameplay AND added the "Murphy's Law" element in a believable and non-frustrating fashion.
Wow... long post :)
EDIT: Now that I think about it, it could also be implemented as a "Spy" type character for the enemy side (similar to Team Fortress), as long as he doesn't attack he looks like the other guys. Though, personally, I like the traitor "on the inside" idea... :)
07/05/2005 (3:48 pm)
Alex: Yes, I have played Gloom. A great way to turn good/evil around on the player.I think the implementation described above (where it randomly happens) is gameplay suicide. Think of the last game you played where a platform that looked stable fell and killed you, or an enemy hit you with a 1-hit kill rocket from offscreen. And these were just gameplay issues, how about those places in a level where you can see a platform, but the collision map does not allow standing on it (Jak and Metroid are major examples), so you slide down the invisible wall and fall in lava or something.
What you are saying is that these unexpected things are now part of the gameplay. That's like saying "its not a bug, its a feature". When I press the "Fire a Rocket" button, I expect that rocket to launch the same way every time. If every ten rockets I fire, one turns around at me, I will blame the designer for making an element that I cannot avoid. If it only happens one out of a hundred, I will think its a bug.
However, consider this option, inspired by a recent game of Shadows Over Camelot that I played:
The gameplay mechanic requires collaboration between players, sharing weapons, helping maintain vehicles, etc. If you need a rocket launcher, you need to go to the player who has the rocket launcher (it doesn't just spawn) and request the launcher from him. Now, there is a chance that one player is a "traitor", who has the option of sabotaging the weapon before giving it to you, or breaking the vehicles instead of fixing them. That traitor gets points for how many of his teammates are killed without him dying. Periodically, of course, the traitor would have to change (at respawn).
So, if you want the rocket launcher, but you get it from the traitor, it may backfire in the way that you described. Or, in the middle of a major firefight, the team needs to retreat, but the traitor has disabled the transport vehicle.
In this way, you have added a strategy to the gameplay AND added the "Murphy's Law" element in a believable and non-frustrating fashion.
Wow... long post :)
EDIT: Now that I think about it, it could also be implemented as a "Spy" type character for the enemy side (similar to Team Fortress), as long as he doesn't attack he looks like the other guys. Though, personally, I like the traitor "on the inside" idea... :)
#23
For team/multiplayer combat, the sabatage solution sounds really appropriate. But all of these excellent posts got me thinking about another aspect of the original post -- monumental, awe-inspiring bad luck as a gameplay element.
With that in mind, here's my disclaimer: the following ideas won't work for the original poster's team dynamics needs, but might be good for a single player game featuring Murphy's Law.
So, if someone were to apply the Murphy's Law concept to an SP-only game, then some really cool options become available. First, the main character in such a game could have a backstory that is full of bad-luck misadventures. This would explain and even forshadow the unfortunate events that lay ahead. That way the player knows to expect the worst and it becomes part of the fun. In such a scenario, bad luck becomes a powerful adversary -- faceless and relentless like in the Final Destination films. Still, the player is armed with an "I'm still Standing" optimism that we love to see in adventure movie heroes.
With such a backstory, the main character could have earned an ironic nickname like 'Lucky' or 'Murphy'. If 'Lucky', then a possible title might be "Lucky Strikes Again" -- which would be a pluralized play on the cigarette brand that began in the late 1800s. Trademark issues may apply, though. If you could get the manufacture's blessing on the title, both it and the product would fit well within the trenches of WWI. That conflict has been less travelled than other wars, so it might seem fresh to some players. And in my opinion, the hardware from that era is much cooler and, perhaps, less reliable.
Difficulty settings for a single player game might increase the frequency of accidents -- unlike traditional SP handicapping methods we've all seen before (health/damage/etc). So instead of facing tougher enemies, you might run into more frequent and more spectacular catastrophes or worse timing and closer shaves.
For the reasons mentioned by several others, these accidents probably shouldn't mean instant or even inevitable (sp?) death. Instead, they could be harrowing but not fatal -- annoying, but not insurmountable. They should present obstacles that add quick wit spice to the overall gameplay puzzle.
Such accidents can be just as unexpected for the enemy as for the player. Imagine a trio of card-playing soldiers caught off guard, frozen in surpise, expecting certain death, escaping because of the player's horrible luck. Scenario repetition and developer creativity could become issues here, though. And coding/scripting/animating would probably be a pain as well. Too much scripting might ruin the feel.
Anyway, my main point is that most players crave the sense of accomplishment they get in beating all the odds. If done well, a game like this might possibly tweak that little bit of vanity by adding a new layer of challenge for players to overcome. In the Thief series of games, noise was the real enemy -- and it was used very well. Maybe one day the same could be said of bad luck in gaming.
So, those are just some ideas that popped into my brain while reading this thread. If I had the time/money/skill, I would love to make a game like this. Who knows, with the right focus and some determination, it might make a good community project.
Aaron E.
07/05/2005 (7:01 pm)
Hello all.For team/multiplayer combat, the sabatage solution sounds really appropriate. But all of these excellent posts got me thinking about another aspect of the original post -- monumental, awe-inspiring bad luck as a gameplay element.
With that in mind, here's my disclaimer: the following ideas won't work for the original poster's team dynamics needs, but might be good for a single player game featuring Murphy's Law.
So, if someone were to apply the Murphy's Law concept to an SP-only game, then some really cool options become available. First, the main character in such a game could have a backstory that is full of bad-luck misadventures. This would explain and even forshadow the unfortunate events that lay ahead. That way the player knows to expect the worst and it becomes part of the fun. In such a scenario, bad luck becomes a powerful adversary -- faceless and relentless like in the Final Destination films. Still, the player is armed with an "I'm still Standing" optimism that we love to see in adventure movie heroes.
With such a backstory, the main character could have earned an ironic nickname like 'Lucky' or 'Murphy'. If 'Lucky', then a possible title might be "Lucky Strikes Again" -- which would be a pluralized play on the cigarette brand that began in the late 1800s. Trademark issues may apply, though. If you could get the manufacture's blessing on the title, both it and the product would fit well within the trenches of WWI. That conflict has been less travelled than other wars, so it might seem fresh to some players. And in my opinion, the hardware from that era is much cooler and, perhaps, less reliable.
Difficulty settings for a single player game might increase the frequency of accidents -- unlike traditional SP handicapping methods we've all seen before (health/damage/etc). So instead of facing tougher enemies, you might run into more frequent and more spectacular catastrophes or worse timing and closer shaves.
For the reasons mentioned by several others, these accidents probably shouldn't mean instant or even inevitable (sp?) death. Instead, they could be harrowing but not fatal -- annoying, but not insurmountable. They should present obstacles that add quick wit spice to the overall gameplay puzzle.
Such accidents can be just as unexpected for the enemy as for the player. Imagine a trio of card-playing soldiers caught off guard, frozen in surpise, expecting certain death, escaping because of the player's horrible luck. Scenario repetition and developer creativity could become issues here, though. And coding/scripting/animating would probably be a pain as well. Too much scripting might ruin the feel.
Anyway, my main point is that most players crave the sense of accomplishment they get in beating all the odds. If done well, a game like this might possibly tweak that little bit of vanity by adding a new layer of challenge for players to overcome. In the Thief series of games, noise was the real enemy -- and it was used very well. Maybe one day the same could be said of bad luck in gaming.
So, those are just some ideas that popped into my brain while reading this thread. If I had the time/money/skill, I would love to make a game like this. Who knows, with the right focus and some determination, it might make a good community project.
Aaron E.
#24
07/05/2005 (9:05 pm)
Sounds like a great idea to me.
#25
For example, say you're firmly stocked on ammo. You could use this as cue to bring in situations where that ammunition is going to be actually needed. In a stealth based game, it would mean just you making a bit of noise as an inopportune moment (though the consequences should be fairly minor, really, unless they have the option to DROP ammo). In an FPS game, a boatload of ammo could mean having the player unwittingly walk into a mob of cannon fodder enemies.
07/05/2005 (10:13 pm)
Perhaps a "bad luck" element could be used to add challenges to a game to compensate player skill and/or loadout?For example, say you're firmly stocked on ammo. You could use this as cue to bring in situations where that ammunition is going to be actually needed. In a stealth based game, it would mean just you making a bit of noise as an inopportune moment (though the consequences should be fairly minor, really, unless they have the option to DROP ammo). In an FPS game, a boatload of ammo could mean having the player unwittingly walk into a mob of cannon fodder enemies.
#26
On the other hand it could easily become frustrating. Try this: Go play a game with a friend and have the friend randomly unplug your keyboard or controller. Are you having fun yet? That's kind of what it would be like to suddenly not be able to shoot your gun. Not very fun. It's your idea. Do what you want with it. Just make sure its fun. Not annoying.
-Peter
07/06/2005 (1:23 am)
What ever you do just keep in mind what game design is all about. You aren't suppose to beat the player, just make them think they accomplished something. In the case of bad luck make them over come it, but don't make their missiles turn on them. That's not bad luck. That's fatal luck. The player doesn't have fun dying. He has fun almost dying. Of course the player has to die sometimes or the threat of dying won't be real. I think of Resident Evil 4. I watched my bother player through it (I program. I didn't have time to play, okay?). He died about twenty time from start to finish and never more than two or three times in the same place. But he was on the edge of death almost the whole time. He was almost always just one wrong move away from death. That's what made the game fun! If you can do something similar with bad luck and make it obvious when it is happening then the game will be fun. Make the bad luck almost bad enough to kill the player. On the other hand it could easily become frustrating. Try this: Go play a game with a friend and have the friend randomly unplug your keyboard or controller. Are you having fun yet? That's kind of what it would be like to suddenly not be able to shoot your gun. Not very fun. It's your idea. Do what you want with it. Just make sure its fun. Not annoying.
-Peter
#27
Hi Mac.
It's a nice feature. But to help it to become a feature, I think it should be first introduced as part of the backstory of the game. While exposing basic aspects of the game world in the first minute, it should be mentioned that things can go wrong in here.
This could be done with a simple cutscene. The military trainer just warns us in the training section of the game: "Lads, we got new toys today, but malfunctions due to manifature errors were reported. So watch out, gentlemen: grenades might not explode, guns might not fire and rockets might blow off your own ass!" After a while make a follow-up with another cutscene: In the panzergrenade training section, the guy that trains before you gets blown off with his own grenade that considered him as a panzer. Now we have clear evidence that this is a problem we might face anytime anywhere.
It's a technique we call "seeding" or "planting". First we give a clue what might happen, then we make it happen. Now it's a fact of that world. You have to live it. If you don't "seed" things, they seem to be considered as unfair. It's just feels like the designer was cheating over us just to create some tension in the game. And that really turns one down. It's condisered as a mistake in storytelling.
If we get into gameplay with this info, the feature now gets a cool twist, not a reason for frustration.
Giving the info beforehand would first and foremore eliminate the risk that some players regard small "wrong goings" (like a grenade not exploding) as a bug and get confused. It would be frustrating to later on find out that what you think was a bug is a game feature. Also players feel frustated if they lose an ambush because something doesn't function. They would start to say, if it doesn't function why the heck do you put it in the game. But if you give carefully seed it, then they have an explanation.
If you explain it straight at the beginning, it becomes a unique attribute of the game world, a truely integrated feature and adds adrenaline. You get into ambush and know that you can't rely on your weapons. Isn't that a true challenge?
On the other hand, weapons that function fully could be truly valuable assets. Add an option were you can loose guns in certain ways. As a player you would care more about your fully functioning gun. You might even allow players to name them, just like it's the case with cars. Loosing a gun and finding it could be an entire level of the game. You play that level with a bad gun and your goal is to get the proper one.
Once you have introduced the player with the idea that not everything happens as supposed and that the entire weapons array might be in a conspiracy against him, then you can even surprise your player: something he was sure it will went wrong, went right... but just a minute later he finds out that this thing had to went right, because this was necessary to get the bigger thing went wrong. ;-)
Nice feature, really! I loved to elaborate about it.
08/08/2005 (9:58 am)
***Sorry if this post is being a bit too late.***Hi Mac.
It's a nice feature. But to help it to become a feature, I think it should be first introduced as part of the backstory of the game. While exposing basic aspects of the game world in the first minute, it should be mentioned that things can go wrong in here.
This could be done with a simple cutscene. The military trainer just warns us in the training section of the game: "Lads, we got new toys today, but malfunctions due to manifature errors were reported. So watch out, gentlemen: grenades might not explode, guns might not fire and rockets might blow off your own ass!" After a while make a follow-up with another cutscene: In the panzergrenade training section, the guy that trains before you gets blown off with his own grenade that considered him as a panzer. Now we have clear evidence that this is a problem we might face anytime anywhere.
It's a technique we call "seeding" or "planting". First we give a clue what might happen, then we make it happen. Now it's a fact of that world. You have to live it. If you don't "seed" things, they seem to be considered as unfair. It's just feels like the designer was cheating over us just to create some tension in the game. And that really turns one down. It's condisered as a mistake in storytelling.
If we get into gameplay with this info, the feature now gets a cool twist, not a reason for frustration.
Giving the info beforehand would first and foremore eliminate the risk that some players regard small "wrong goings" (like a grenade not exploding) as a bug and get confused. It would be frustrating to later on find out that what you think was a bug is a game feature. Also players feel frustated if they lose an ambush because something doesn't function. They would start to say, if it doesn't function why the heck do you put it in the game. But if you give carefully seed it, then they have an explanation.
If you explain it straight at the beginning, it becomes a unique attribute of the game world, a truely integrated feature and adds adrenaline. You get into ambush and know that you can't rely on your weapons. Isn't that a true challenge?
On the other hand, weapons that function fully could be truly valuable assets. Add an option were you can loose guns in certain ways. As a player you would care more about your fully functioning gun. You might even allow players to name them, just like it's the case with cars. Loosing a gun and finding it could be an entire level of the game. You play that level with a bad gun and your goal is to get the proper one.
Once you have introduced the player with the idea that not everything happens as supposed and that the entire weapons array might be in a conspiracy against him, then you can even surprise your player: something he was sure it will went wrong, went right... but just a minute later he finds out that this thing had to went right, because this was necessary to get the bigger thing went wrong. ;-)
Nice feature, really! I loved to elaborate about it.
#28
08/08/2005 (10:01 am)
I would call this the "Murphy's law as Democles'Sword" game element.
#29
Don't sue me I'm sucking this out of my thumb as I type.
Imagine a game where you could alter or effect another players "path in life" by toying around with his future and maybe even his past. Let's say that at the start of the game both (or more) players start with an amount of "karma" or whatever, with that karma they can buy certain effect that can be used in the future. For simple sake let's make these into "trump cards". Take that both players buy these cards and then are able to use them in the opposing players (possible) future. You drop a banana here and there, make a sudden speeding car come from the right, let a coconut fall on ones head, make the other guy's weapon lock at xx:xx... etc etc. This would add to the tactical side of the game after which, when both players are done with their plotting the players would enter the world and solve their pre-defined mission (whatever that is: killing eachother or going to the store).
The events will happen, but whether or not your opponent will fall into them is based on luck and intuition. You could fool the opponent with other trump card, play little mind games by letting a black cat walk past them.
The more things "mishappen" with the opponent the more "bad karma" you'll get back to use in the next match.
The different locations could be large or small. You could have a city to work in but that wouldn't be as much fun with 2 players, if you have 10 players however...
There's more to it when you would think more about it and elements could be added if I keep typing but since I already had to retype this due to a suddon crash I'll quickly end here before Murphy makes me to do it a third time.
08/10/2005 (5:15 am)
What if you make a more hybrid version of that idea into a more "hybrid game".Don't sue me I'm sucking this out of my thumb as I type.
Imagine a game where you could alter or effect another players "path in life" by toying around with his future and maybe even his past. Let's say that at the start of the game both (or more) players start with an amount of "karma" or whatever, with that karma they can buy certain effect that can be used in the future. For simple sake let's make these into "trump cards". Take that both players buy these cards and then are able to use them in the opposing players (possible) future. You drop a banana here and there, make a sudden speeding car come from the right, let a coconut fall on ones head, make the other guy's weapon lock at xx:xx... etc etc. This would add to the tactical side of the game after which, when both players are done with their plotting the players would enter the world and solve their pre-defined mission (whatever that is: killing eachother or going to the store).
The events will happen, but whether or not your opponent will fall into them is based on luck and intuition. You could fool the opponent with other trump card, play little mind games by letting a black cat walk past them.
The more things "mishappen" with the opponent the more "bad karma" you'll get back to use in the next match.
The different locations could be large or small. You could have a city to work in but that wouldn't be as much fun with 2 players, if you have 10 players however...
There's more to it when you would think more about it and elements could be added if I keep typing but since I already had to retype this due to a suddon crash I'll quickly end here before Murphy makes me to do it a third time.
#30
>Imagine a game where you could alter or effect another players "path in life" by >toying around with his future and maybe even his past.
I had a similar idea before, based on a "time machine feature". You could go back in time to destroy a, say, certain building, and when you are back, everything based on that building would be gone. But the player which building you destroy would go to a earlier place and build a second building somewhere else and the effect of your attack would be neutralized. Or he would go and destroy something else in your city which makes it impossible for you to exploit the weakness that you imposed on him with your former attack on his building. The strategic and tactical challenge is where to travel in time and what to destroy in each turn. Some buildings would be harder to distroy, so the stategic element could be only implemented if you also have tactical skills. So we would have a connection between the more detailed level of actions and te more high level of strategic decisions.
However I didn't get deeper into this. I just have this mechanism. It needs a story.
Anyway, the plot that you explain is quite different, except the "playing with the past/future" feature but I really like your idea. It could be quite funny in a FPS to have the features you described. It's like having a "chess" element in Counter-Strike. You could go for strategies but still have the core "shoot 'em up" thing. Really nice. You could have lots of fun while playing it multiplayer. It provides many options for "Schadenfreude" and "teasing" each other :-)
08/10/2005 (6:04 am)
@Mansemat: >Imagine a game where you could alter or effect another players "path in life" by >toying around with his future and maybe even his past.
I had a similar idea before, based on a "time machine feature". You could go back in time to destroy a, say, certain building, and when you are back, everything based on that building would be gone. But the player which building you destroy would go to a earlier place and build a second building somewhere else and the effect of your attack would be neutralized. Or he would go and destroy something else in your city which makes it impossible for you to exploit the weakness that you imposed on him with your former attack on his building. The strategic and tactical challenge is where to travel in time and what to destroy in each turn. Some buildings would be harder to distroy, so the stategic element could be only implemented if you also have tactical skills. So we would have a connection between the more detailed level of actions and te more high level of strategic decisions.
However I didn't get deeper into this. I just have this mechanism. It needs a story.
Anyway, the plot that you explain is quite different, except the "playing with the past/future" feature but I really like your idea. It could be quite funny in a FPS to have the features you described. It's like having a "chess" element in Counter-Strike. You could go for strategies but still have the core "shoot 'em up" thing. Really nice. You could have lots of fun while playing it multiplayer. It provides many options for "Schadenfreude" and "teasing" each other :-)
#31
- some people are faster then others, the one playing the cards longer would leave his opponent in a status of complete and utter boredom... ofcourse a deadline would be usefull and a small minigame that gives "advantages" in realtime life as compensation would work maybe.
-dying fast is always a bore and is good cause it shows how much you suck, but multiplayer games like this can't strive on respawn, again, a minigame would be nice... take it as some kind of afterlife effect where you try to get on the good side of Lady Fortuna.
- and last but not least: what if two people decide to drop a crate from the exact same place at the exact same time? very unplausible but like we say: if something can go wrong...
As for your idea... To me it looks like in the near future there won't be anymore room to build and the companies that sell houses and lots (forgot the word sorry) to people are abusing the new technology of time travel to reclaim and sabotage other companies. It's corporate kapitalist warfare and you as player are one of them. Dunno, maybe too simple and you most likely thought of that too
08/11/2005 (3:52 am)
The only problem i see right now is this: - some people are faster then others, the one playing the cards longer would leave his opponent in a status of complete and utter boredom... ofcourse a deadline would be usefull and a small minigame that gives "advantages" in realtime life as compensation would work maybe.
-dying fast is always a bore and is good cause it shows how much you suck, but multiplayer games like this can't strive on respawn, again, a minigame would be nice... take it as some kind of afterlife effect where you try to get on the good side of Lady Fortuna.
- and last but not least: what if two people decide to drop a crate from the exact same place at the exact same time? very unplausible but like we say: if something can go wrong...
As for your idea... To me it looks like in the near future there won't be anymore room to build and the companies that sell houses and lots (forgot the word sorry) to people are abusing the new technology of time travel to reclaim and sabotage other companies. It's corporate kapitalist warfare and you as player are one of them. Dunno, maybe too simple and you most likely thought of that too
Anguel
I also want to point out that though I like Thomas's idea for wind influencing long-range shots, this pretty much makes it a given that you're going to have to have really nice clouds, not just sprites. Because if people are looking at the clouds, even only ocasionally, just the fact that they will check them on a semi-regular basis means that if you have some sprites they'll probably be dissapointed, especially if they se them often. If you bother with having nice clouds(which most games don't) people will wonder why you don't have nice foilage, then buildings, then... "hey! why do the buildings look nicer than the players?!" I think you get where i'm going.
My point is that this WILL end up being a large game, but then again, if it works well and is a good game, who cares?
p.s. I think you should go with Toms idea, you should have pretty graphics anyways now you have a reason other than just 'cuz u want it to be pretty.