Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Does abstraction = Simplification (i.e. "dumbing down")

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hearts of Iron IV 45516 Bug Reports 15213 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
unmerged(53301)

unmerged(53301)

Banned
Jan 26, 2006
1.302
0
Because, from what we know so far, it kind of seems that way. Production is being "abstracted" as are upgrades. Look, I REALLY don't want to get in trouble for this because--as you can see by all my little icons--I love paradox. I'm not trying to troll with these threads or anything, I just want to try and help paradox as much as possible and do whatever I can to make the game good.

I don't want the game to be a dumbed down, WW2 sandbox with very little depth. Production and research add depth to the game. Turning the AI on and then sitting back and watching them strategically redeploy units up and down the front until supplies run out a la HOI3 does not add depth, yet it seems like that's what HOI4 is headed for via the whole AI-controlled battle plan thing.

Maybe espionage will be deep enough so that the game doesn't feel over-simplified?

Please don't get me in trouble, I just want the game to succeed. I love HOI series and Paradox I'm just concerned about the direction it's heading.
 
I do not like abstraction too. I hope that the game will be as small as possible abstract and more concrete. Hopefully the player will be able to manage all aspects of government and military development. And also do not want to have the feeling of playing the arcade.
 
I purchased HoI3 about a month ago, I think I made my first post last week on the forums. So I'm not very experienced with the games nor the forums (but I lurk the forums quite a bit). The first paradox game I purchased was Magicka, but the first GS was CK2. CK2 was the bomb, I went to the wikia and the forums and read and read until I felt comfortable enough to play and I had so much fun. Now I still play that game, and one of the things that keeps me going is how much history I can change. With CK2 and EU4, it is the Russians who enslave the Mongols! It is the Norse who conquered and converted the Catholics! It's a blast.

How I think all of this ties in to what you, fishtank, said:

1. I feel like thanks to CK2 and other fantastic strategy games that aren't super complex there is a larger potential market. Paradox is now gonna start trying to appease both its fans and this new larger audience? Why? Money. And no, it doesn't make them evil sell outs, it makes them a business. I just hope there is a balance between 'making the game simpler for a wider audience' and 'staying true to the original fans.' It's one of the most difficult things to balance. As far as I've seen while Paradox is making moves they're not doing a full shift to only money-making, like Electronic Arts or Ubisoft. The game won't be as complex as HoI3 but it won't be gutted entirely and left to rot like the new Sim City.

2. Replay value and 'fun.' Fun is what you personally define as entertainment for you, and while for you fun is in an incredibly realistic simulation, for others fun is alternating history and being allowed to do whatever you want to do. In your case this is a bad things since the game might be changed to suit a wider audience (going back to what we said earlier). In HoI3 playing outside of the super-powers without modding saves or files is hard. I get a tiny fraction of the production and leadership of the majors and I can't do anything. In Europe playing as a minor nation pretty much requires allying with axis/allies and you're limited to defending yourself or helping one of your big friends in an attack on another super power. If I'm playing as Argentina I can't expand or fight because America will come down and slap me to the ground like I was nothing. Thats every South American country.

Tl;dr: HoI3 is a proper WWII simulator, and (sadly) there aren't many WWII buffs walking around. Hmm...not that there aren't many. There are just way more people who want to do whatever they want, who care little about history, and don't want to think hard then there are the opposite, and this means more money. Which now means Paradox will try to balance the best of both worlds, to keep faithful fans AND to make more money. Such is business, just gonna have to deal with it and judge the game on how good it is when it's out.
 
Last edited:
I do not think you have to worry. Ofcourse it depends on what you see as improvements. The current Pdox trend is streamlining of the interface. Does this mean the underlying mechanics are dumbed down? no it does not. However it means that you have easier access to the important decisions in their games and the stuff thats practically unnessesary gets removed.
The example from HoI4 that we have learned about is the map. From what we know they have removed all the different map modes and now provide all information in an easy accessable way. Does it take anything from the game experience? nope, but it removes looking through god knows how many maps.

Second Production. This is a good example of how the game seem to become deeper and more complex. Instead of using IC to produce division X it seems we how have 3 different forms of IC (military/naval/civil) also production lines and efficientcy from producing the same chassis adds a lot of new strategic options we never had before. Do you produce Pz IV, do you upgrade Pz IV to Pz IV F, do you change your line to produce Jagdpz IV (which is still the same chassis or do you change the production to Pz V or Pz VI. Also it adds a dimension to how to setup the production. A Few lines will provide alot of efficientcy but also makes it harder to change model without a large hit to productionrates. having more lines makes it easier to produce the latest units but doesnt provide the same efficentcy. If this is how its going to work its a whole palet of new options we never even knew we could have. Proper strategic decisions that matter and shape the country.

Battleplans another new addition. A micromanager might not think this is an important addition but for all of us that doesnt want to command every unit its a godsent. Also to the micro it provides a huge improvement to the current system in terms of less important fronts. This also makes the game more accessible. This is important because more paying customers means more patches, more dlc, more expansions. In general more goodies for the hardcore fans. Also it might become easier to convince your friends to try the game out. Also remember having an option doesnt mean you have to use it.

Regarding upgrades i do not see how this is getting abstrated. In HoI3 you research a upgrade then use IC to upgrade your units. Thats pretty abstract. In HoI4 from what we currently know you reseach base chassis (Pz IV, Pz V, Pz VI etc.) then you can use battlefield knowledge to provide further improvements to a design Pz IV F. When you reseach a new design you cant just use your IC to upgrade all your units. You have to change your productionlines so they start producing the new tanks then as the divisions on the front begin losing tanks they are provided with the new and improved designs. If is isnt a huge improvement i dont know what is?

In general i think you can expect the underlying game to become more complex compared to HoI 3 however it will become easier for you to manage the complexity. As the information you need to make your decision are provided in a more streamlined and easier to understand manner.
 
Last edited:
RuskiVolkov said:
...........There are just way more people who want to do whatever they want, who care little about history, and don't want to think hard then there are the opposite, and this means more money. Such is business, just gonna have to deal with it and judge the game on how good it is when it's out.
Click to expand...

Problem is: the fans here might not want that - and it is the fans here that will buy the game - even without marketing (the forum being PDs biggest marketing). gamers outside the fans will not here about it, and let say they played an earlier title and though: This is not for me. then they might not buy a new game in the same line.
 
Any strategic level game is necessarily going to be highly abstracted. Abstraction does not equate with being "dumbed down". Otherwise any strategic level game would be dumber than any tactical simulation like Steel Panthers or something which obviously isn't the case.

There is a design decision to be made about how much stuff you are going to try and depict and in what detail. The key is to strive for a balance where it's abstracted enough that it works as a game and doesn't get lost in the details but not too abstracted that it loses it's historical flavour and becomes too generic. Personally I think HOI2 was better in this regard, while HOI3 strayed a little towards the "trying to do too much" category.
 
Råttan said:
Problem is: the fans here might not want that - and it is the fans here that will buy the game - even without marketing (the forum being PDs biggest marketing). gamers outside the fans will not here about it, and let say they played an earlier title and though: This is not for me. then they might not buy a new game in the same line.
Click to expand...

I have added an extra sentence to that paragraph! Sorry it wasn't just about the people who want to do whatever they want. What I meant to say is that with these people and there being more of them the game could possibly be made to try to appeal to both audiences, to both bring in more money (and possibly new fans) while keeping the old ones happy and loyal. It's not an easy thing to do.

For instance I read that the tech is now streamlined and one comment compared it to Civ5. To me this is horrifying. it's ok with Civ5 because it's a board game, not the Empire building simulator it used to be. If this is the system in HoI4 it ruins a major part of HoI3, the initial planning. If I'm going to be fighting in a lot of jungles or mountains I would focus on infantry and infantry doctrines. Now I'm only guessing since I haven't seen it, but a streamlined tech tree would require I get tanks, planes, and ships along with my infantry for no good reason. While I do not like this, this is not a valid reason to say 'the game is bad.' It's only different.
 
If you think EU4 and CK2 are "dumbed down" from their predecessors, yes. But you'd have to be pretty silly to think that, so the short answer is simply "no".
 
I do not think abstraction is the same as "dumbing down". abstraction can be an easy fix for a game mechanic that Paradox simply do not have the resources to properly improver within the game mechanics of HOI3. and for the way the battleplan is shaping out. i think it will be a welcomed feature. I think it will give us more, and better control over what the AI is doing. and for someone trying to run a fast campaign I think it is welcomed. it also seams, from what i have heard until now. that you can also chose to ignore AI, and just go "assuming direct control" like it HOI3 and I think that is a good thing. giving you the same flexibility, only with better tools.
 
RuskiVolkov said:
I have added an extra sentence to that paragraph! Sorry it wasn't just about the people who want to do whatever they want. What I meant to say is that with these people and there being more of them the game could possibly be made to try to appeal to both audiences, to both bring in more money (and possibly new fans) while keeping the old ones happy and loyal. It's not an easy thing to do.

For instance I read that the tech is now streamlined and one comment compared it to Civ5. To me this is horrifying. it's ok with Civ5 because it's a board game, not the Empire building simulator it used to be. If this is the system in HoI4 it ruins a major part of HoI3, the initial planning. If I'm going to be fighting in a lot of jungles or mountains I would focus on infantry and infantry doctrines. Now I'm only guessing since I haven't seen it, but a streamlined tech tree would require I get tanks, planes, and ships along with my infantry for no good reason. While I do not like this, this is not a valid reason to say 'the game is bad.' It's only different.
Click to expand...

all your comment demonstrates is that you aren't up to date on the information released but are willing to draw wild conclusions. there is no reason to assume that the tech trees are similar to those of civ 5. what we do know is that there are more than ten different scrollable tech trees. these scrollable trees superficially resemble the branching but unitary tech tree of civ 5, which leads alarmists to scream their heads off and people like you to repeat inaccurate rumors that do nothing but spread misinformation.

if people aren't willing to stay informed about the game, they shouldn't bother making half-cocked & ill informed posts about it.
 
Because, from what we know so far, it kind of seems that way. Production is being "abstracted" as are upgrades.
Click to expand...
It sounds more like you don't understand what's said about the ideas - it's clear to be seen in upgrades' thread - and create your own vision off incomplete information. Abstraction doesn't equal simplification or dumbing down the game. X-COM didn't dumb down the game by streamlining features. It's still a very deep turn based tactical game. Unless you want a carbon copy of HoI3 with better graphics I think it's best to try refining old ideas into something fresh and better. Different than HoI3 doesn't mean worse. I, for one, like how production is being presented so far as well as upgrades. Much better and LESS abstracted than HoI3.
 
Seriously, FishTank, go read some of the posts that people put up before HOI3 worrying about the game being "dumbed-down" (they used exactly this term) because 3D graphics were being used and some features were being stream-lined. HOI3 wasn't a "dumbed-down" version of HOI2, and there's ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe that HOI4 will be dumbed-down version of HOI3.

And let's consider some of the things that might accurately be described as "dumbing-down" the game that were done for HOI3 - take the Arcade Mode introduced in Semper Fi: how many people actually use this? I would be surprised if more than a handful did. Why? Because it didn't actually address any of the concerns people had over the supply system etc. - people didn't want to not have it, people just wanted it to work properly and in a way that didn't reduce the game to a confusing mess. Arcade Mode was no solution at all to the real problems that existed with the game.

EDIT: Actually, I'm now thinking it would probably be wiser just to let this thread die a natural death and not respond to it.
 
EvilFishtank said:
Because, from what we know so far, it kind of seems that way. Production is being "abstracted" as are upgrades. Look, I REALLY don't want to get in trouble for this because--as you can see by all my little icons--I love paradox. I'm not trying to troll with these threads or anything, I just want to try and help paradox as much as possible and do whatever I can to make the game good.

I don't want the game to be a dumbed down, WW2 sandbox with very little depth. Production and research add depth to the game. Turning the AI on and then sitting back and watching them strategically redeploy units up and down the front until supplies run out a la HOI3 does not add depth, yet it seems like that's what HOI4 is headed for via the whole AI-controlled battle plan thing.

Maybe espionage will be deep enough so that the game doesn't feel over-simplified?

Please don't get me in trouble, I just want the game to succeed. I love HOI series and Paradox I'm just concerned about the direction it's heading.
Click to expand...

It what way are production and upgrades more "abstract" than before? If anything our new production model is more detailed than any previous HoI game, we have different types of factories rather than just "IC" and you build pools of equipment rather than just pouring IC into units/upgrades. The sky is not falling.
 
208 said:
The short answer is no. Abstract has a separate definition from Simplification.
Example:
Algebra, high school math: y = 3x + 5
Abstract Algebra, university-level math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_algebra
Click to expand...

I second this though it depends more on the context also, say abstract programming language like Javascript is simpler compared to C++. (Still abstraction doesn't necessarily mean simplification)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(computer_science)
 
It's not number of buttons you can click, but the number of meaning choices that determines complexity.

For an extreme example, the Chinese game Go has exactly 1 type of unit for each player, a game map of 361 provinces, and a rule so simply you recite it in 2 sentences. Yet it is one of the most complex games ever.
Or take most german boardgames, e.g. Agricola, Powergrid. Very abstracted. Very deep.

In some ways, having things abstracted makes it easier for developers to implement meaningful decision-making. There are games that hide behind 1000 big floating numbers that look truly complex on the outside, but once you understand the system, are quite shallow inside.

That said, we should probably wait for some real information before condemning a product:eek:o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back