Tweet
The art of destroying a game-upgrade
I have posted below acronym before, but after reading the mammoth thread "The Map.... Again" + some other threads, i just feel that i should repost it again, with some extra commentaries.
LIPAJIW = Let increased play-value alone justify increased [game-developing] workload.
Explanation: If an upgrade-suggestion demands really drastic and principally different design overhauls compared to the original game - but in the end gives no, or only insignificantly increased actual fun- and play-value in return; then its probably better to skip that suggestion all together.
Above rule should however be for the Firaxis team what salt is for the cook:
Adding to much of the rule, and you end up with a reductional emaciated design approach, where the under-the-hood game-parameters in the follow-up, is more or less identical compared to the original game.
A really sad example of this is the upgrade from Sim City 2000 to 3000.
On the other hand - adding to little, and you stuck with an overbloated "Frankensteins monster" of a game there the team gave in to unrealistic demands of trying to squeeze a whole real-life world of complex AI-burdening parameters into the game.
Sense moral: Too much and too little ruins everything!
In the art-world theres an expression that says: every artist must know when its time to "kill hes darlings". By this they mean, that he must know then it time to stop repaint and overpaint the same favourite painting over and over again...
(As i remember it some the biggest complaines of CTP was that they changed even the most basic tried-and-tested Civ-2 design-approaches - just for the name of change. It didnt seem to matter if these solutions often worked less good then the original Civ-2 ones. Everything just HAD to change! Change for the sake of change...)
The bottom line is also that Civ-3 should be a game that is accessable and explaineable to the average casual strategy-gamer as well - you know; that guy who dont want plow through a manual twice as thick as the original Civ-2 one.
I quote Croxis from an old post regarding the KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple Stupid):
"If your really cool idea takes very long to explain then it probably would be way to hard to explain it to a new gamer. Also, when trying to find a solution to a problem its probably best to change what is already currently in CivII then trying to add more to the game(information overload)".
LIPAJIW = Let increased play-value alone justify increased [game-developing] workload.
Explanation: If an upgrade-suggestion demands really drastic and principally different design overhauls compared to the original game - but in the end gives no, or only insignificantly increased actual fun- and play-value in return; then its probably better to skip that suggestion all together.
Above rule should however be for the Firaxis team what salt is for the cook:
Adding to much of the rule, and you end up with a reductional emaciated design approach, where the under-the-hood game-parameters in the follow-up, is more or less identical compared to the original game.
A really sad example of this is the upgrade from Sim City 2000 to 3000.
On the other hand - adding to little, and you stuck with an overbloated "Frankensteins monster" of a game there the team gave in to unrealistic demands of trying to squeeze a whole real-life world of complex AI-burdening parameters into the game.
Sense moral: Too much and too little ruins everything!
In the art-world theres an expression that says: every artist must know when its time to "kill hes darlings". By this they mean, that he must know then it time to stop repaint and overpaint the same favourite painting over and over again...
(As i remember it some the biggest complaines of CTP was that they changed even the most basic tried-and-tested Civ-2 design-approaches - just for the name of change. It didnt seem to matter if these solutions often worked less good then the original Civ-2 ones. Everything just HAD to change! Change for the sake of change...)
The bottom line is also that Civ-3 should be a game that is accessable and explaineable to the average casual strategy-gamer as well - you know; that guy who dont want plow through a manual twice as thick as the original Civ-2 one.
I quote Croxis from an old post regarding the KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple Stupid):
"If your really cool idea takes very long to explain then it probably would be way to hard to explain it to a new gamer. Also, when trying to find a solution to a problem its probably best to change what is already currently in CivII then trying to add more to the game(information overload)".
Comment