Instead I see millions of different random quests which are funny(!) but it can't be the HEART of a game. Like someone noted here: the whole game is based on features build together to a game which misses several essential things: Making real decisions is my biggest! Many of the "features" are random based and most of the rest are irrelevant! I can decide to give my troops a spear or a sword but it NOT important, same as all this buildings (just build them!).
Yes, i said it for exactly the same reason. I prefer a school of thought of Sid Meier, Zileas and Soren Johnson:
http://www. gamedev .net/reference/design/features/balance/ (remake of the original article)
google mirror
*NO hotlinking*
Tom Cadwell said:
What is Play Balance?
Sid Meier once said, "A game is a collection of interesting choices". It follows that game elements being out of balance and thereby eliminating choices detracts from the gameplay. Ideally, a game should be a series of choices, ending with victory of defeat or some other end condition. Sometimes, some choices will become unquestionably the only choice, or definitely not a valid choice. If there is only one valid choice at some point, but the game hasn't ended, there is a play balance problem.
Nearly all situations commonly referred to as imbalances can be boiled down to a choice reduction.
So, a game is about making interesting choices. Strategy game should be about strategic/tactical choices.
http://www. designer-notes .com/?p=119
http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119
Soren Johnson said:
The Player Should Have the Fun, not the Designer or the Computer
As Sid liked to say, with these games, either the designer or the computer was the one having the fun, not the player.
...
but also took away the player’s ability to pick which technologies were researched, what buildings were constructed, and which units were trained, relying instead on a hidden, internal model to simulate what the county’s people would choose on their own. The algorithms were, of course, very fun to construct and interesting to discuss outside of the game. The players, however, felt left behind – the computer was having all the fun – so we cut the feature.
That's what i talked about - a difference between self-playing simulators and strategy games.
Soren Johnson said:
Further, games require not just meaningful choices but also meaningful communication to feel right. Giving players decisions that have consequence but which they cannot understand is no fun.
...
Choice is only interesting when it is both impactful and informed.
No manual, no tooltips in the game, convoluted formulas... A common mistake in all Stardock's games. Well, now at least they hired Soren Johnson who wrote that article, so maybe they'll fix some of it.
IMHO uninformed choice is not a strategic choice at all - if you don't know why you should pick one choice or another and how it affects your situation in a game, then you can't make a strategic decision.
http://na. leagueoflegends .com/board/showthread.php?t=293417
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417
[QUOTE="Tom Cadwell" (Zileas)]
Burden of Knowledge
This is a
VERY common pattern amongst
hardcore novice game designers. This pattern is when you do a complex mechanic that creates gameplay -- ONLY IF the victim understands what is going on.
...
However, you have no way of knowing this is happening unless someone tells you or unless you read up on it online... So the initial response is extreme frustration.
...
In summary, all mechanics have some burden of knowledge, and as game designers, we seek to design skills in a way that gives us a lot of gameplay, for not too much burden of knowledge. If we get a lot more gameplay from something, we are willing to take on more burden of knowledge -- but for a given mechanic, we want to have as little burden of knowledge as possible
[/QUOTE]
Funny thing, Stardock makes a "VERY common" noob mistake.
