New Designer Diaries!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Great new designer diaries! This one debates whether it should be a big world game (like Civ) or small scenarios (like Gettysburg!). I like the big world idea. I especially liked the idea for the "pangaea" idea. Start out on one big continent and then continental drift develops and you must evolve into flying and swimming dinos!

I also like the idea of random events totally changing the way the game is done! Ice Ages or Volcanic Eruptions could give way to new species of dinos, some that are adapted to live in the new world.

I'm hoping for a Civ-type big world, TBS game, with massive random events and continental drift!

Oh, and did anyone notice the detail on the trees? Wow!

[Vanguard]

Jurassic Park? I thought they closed that place after all the dinosaurs got loose.


It is interesting to see the decisions that have to made in this sort of project. I really think Big World RTS is the only way to go. Dinosaur scenarios might be more realistic or educational, and less prone to "runaway strategies". But scenarios just wouldn't be as interesting to play as watching the whole world evolve over the aeons.

[Jeje2]

I like this idea of diary. Interesting to read about all the things one has to consider in gamemaking.

But now we have RTS vs. TB and wolrd vs. scenario. Some ansvers would also be nice. Is this a RTS or TB or something in between? I don't know.


I liked the idea of moving scenarios. When I am done here my herd moves in this direction and a new goal. (Best would be if the scenario depends on direction as well)

Let's say that it's been cold winters and currently I am quite north. Well as I finish this mission I could go south (for warmer climate, but more inhabitants) or north(Les inhabitants, food a problem => need to genetic evolving.) Also randomness, it might start a warm age a.s.o.

[Adm.Naismith]

Oh dear, Firaxis will drive all us crazy
Hmmm, a scenario-based Dino would miss a lot of replayability, that I always considered a must of best games (as CIV, CIV II and partially SMAC). A Dino-Scenario, if I can put my bet, will be RTS because if its small fast is better (trade deepness for action).
On dino point of view that make sense, they already miss the concept of a whole world: they live to browse or hunt and only move when resource are scarce. If you read carefully, Sid speak about dino reacting to balanced resources (it sounds a bit like a Life sim/game to me, I mean that grid where square born or dead according to simple rules, do you know?). The herds move around nicely only in a RTS, so...
OTOH, Pangea idea has very interesting strong point. Hmmm, well now I put my coin on a dynamic global world as general scenario container (I'm thinking at flying simulator battlefield as I red about F16 Falcon 4), where some events - random, induced by player results, by flow of time - will zoom the game on a reduced area with a scenario goal.
The general level could be a sort of TBS, where you link with global event the single RTS scenarios.
On general level you can see the main flow of time (on a large enough scale), then at scenario level your dino's move will take real minutes, not turn of years as CIV. Genetic mutation can happen on a scenario e.g. a different dino born, you must defend he/she until grows enough to care him/herself, but they need plenty of years to firmly take place on a dino population, so you can zoom out on general level and watch your herd reproduce and evolve, then you get a new, mutated herd to look at next scenario. Any thought about my opinion? Agree, disagree, mild insult?

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[L o k i]

Some of you still see a TBS vs RTS debate.

But I see a decision made on RTS.

First there was the discussion on which to use, then there was a big hint that it was going to be rts, and now I see that it is going to be an rts, but some still think there is a decision to be made. I can't see it, someone show me.

And didn't a lot of dinosaurs mark their territory with a big pile of poo? lol. I hope thats in it!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I still don't think that it'll be RTS. I think Sid and Co. are going to realize that for a huge game like this, you can't use RTS! It has to be TBS to give it the scope of Civ. And they will end up with a Civ-type of game, fitting in nicely with the other Sweep of Time games.

[L o k i]

Thats what I am hoping

And MarkG, did you have trouble trying to remove the red background from the tree image? I spent half an hour!! trying to remove it..and did a crap job! It's on my front page, you can use it if you want.

Tree

(I put the tree image link only first, it looked crap on the white background, so I'm giving the page its on. sorry if I'm advertising. lol)

[This message has been edited by L o k i (edited January 14, 2000).]

[MarkG]

actually, I put it in a red table instead

[Glak.]

I suspect that they are going with a big world TBS type game. That's because I have no faith. Sure Sid made civ1 and it was good. But Brian works at firaxis and I hate everything he has ever done and I think he pushes Sid around, so yeah DIE BRIAN! Ok but then this diary didn't really lift my spirits. He talks about big world vs scenario. It sounds like there is still that overwhelming single player fixation. If they are going to make it a single player game then that is ok. I just don't want them lying to us and saying you can play it multiplayer when really you can't. Like the guy brought up Starcraft as an example of scenario type game. Hmm well you see SC is played on small maps not because that makes for better scenarios but because the game totally breaks down and becomes boring when the map gets above (or below) certain size thresholds.

Here's an idea: persistant world like those dumb online RPGs. I've played a lot of EQ and I hate it but I think that kind of world might work for this type of game. When you log off your dinos would disappear but all of you structures and terrain improvements would remain to be stolen by other players. When you log on you have to find an abandoned town or go build a new one.

You'd have perhaps 10-50 dinos. If you have multiples of the same type they could breed but umm.. it wouldn't be too graphical. You could also recruit lone dinos that run away from abusive herds. (sort of a loyalty statistic based on a variety of factors) So you could evolve your own but for types you don't have that many you would have to steal eggs or recruit the disgruntled to get the latest in evolutions. You could probably trade your dinos with other players. Going into a war soon? Put out your purebred brontosaurus to stud and receive some lightwieght fighters as payment.

The peristant world is ideal when it comes to evolution. There wouldn't really be winners or losers either. Some people would go all out predetory and fight other players. Others might attempt to run a peaceful herd and replace losses faster than they take them. Most of course would use a mix. Some players would want to play in the water and would go all out sea dinos, maybe with some air support. Hey actually this sounds kind of fun. Even the passive herds could compete with each other. Do I need long necks or some other adaptation to grab the food?

Actually while I was writing this I thought about the tree. It is an RTS tree, perhaps it could be TBS but looking at those trees...

[RenderDrone]

Are you some kind of ******? I thought talking out of asses is only a right of the priviledged.
[This message has been edited by RenderDrone (edited January 15, 2000).]

[Atahualpa]

One thing I always hated when playing scenario based games, is that I have to start from the scratch everytime. C&C and co. become quite boring quickly cause you have to do the same steps over and over.

In my playing style I always push a LOT of effort in my base and I look that everything runs perfectly. Now this is a lot of work, so I always hated it, when I had everything running and then had to start from the scratch.
Same with Age of Empires - egyptian campaign. Even though I have researched the iron age in the last scenario I start out in the very first age in the next scenario.

Thats quite boring, starting from the scratch all the time.
I like more the "Civilization" idea, where you lead your herd from the beginning to the end.

Ata

P.S.: The game becomes more interesting the more you read about it!

[L o k i]

I totaly agree, scenarios are BORING, plain and simple. They're so boring infact, I sometimes stop playing the game half way through, they're so boring that if I get the chance NOT to play a scenario, I will!

Every scenario type game, I have only played once straight through. Its about a months worth of gaming. And that's it I'd never go back, simply because I've done it all before, everythings too easy. It's like going to a job and doing the same thing over and over again, you don't want to do the same thing over and over again!! You want something different each time! And that doesn't mean change the look of the map, that's not good enough. You gotta do a little bit more than that.

Sure, If you want to put scenario's in, then put them in, but don't make it the major part of the game, make the large world the major part of the game.

A lot of people seem to think this is gonna be a DinoCraft, well somehow, by the screenshots and the gameplay, It doesn't look like that to me. Both Starcraft and Warcraft were total war games, all about war.

This dinosaur game is a lot more than just war, its about evolving, its about surviving, reproducing, interacting with the terrain.

Hey, Age of Kings is closer to being a Warcraft type game than this Dinosaurs game, sheesh.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I have to agree with Loki... it looks like the decision to go RTS/scenario (edit--whoops, looks like Loki doesn't think it won't be scenario . . . from the last post, I thought otherwise) has already been made, and the diaries are Firaxis' way of easing us into the decision. I mean, do those trees really look like anything you've seen in a big-world TBS game? They're way to big to fit into that kind of map, and I don't think they're from cutscenes, either. I suppose it's possible that they're intended for a 'dinopedia' type section, but from the angle they were rendered, I don't think so. To me, they look a lot like props from a zoomed-in, RTS-style small map.

I suspect what's going on is the Firaxis folks knew that they had the concept for what might be a really great game, but they knew that it wasn't going to be automatically accepted by their traditional audience (which is, well, us.) The dinosaurs theme was a little cheesy, it had been done before with bad results, and (horror of horrors) it was going to be an RTS! In a series of TBS games! That package would be a hard sell, no matter how good the game was, so I think with the diaries they're trying to ease us into the decisions they've made about the game, and hope we follow them through the decision-making process, instead of just throwing us all into shock when they announce the much-hyped third member of the sweep of time is an RTS about dinosaurs.

But hey, maybe I'm just being cynical, and it will turn out to be a big-world, TBS, civ-esque game that will make everyone happy.

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited January 15, 2000).]

[The diplomat]

Why can't those trees be for a TBS? Who said that TBS cannot have close up great 3D looking graphics? Sure it would be kinda revolutionary for the genre, but is that not what we have been screeming for? something revolutionary...
I for one hope that civ3 and Sid's dino will be TBS, large world (not scenario) and have good looking graphics like those trees.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why can't it be a TBS tree? Chances are that that tree (which is so detailed) might by actually very, very small on the world map. After all, it might be prototypes. It seems in the diaries they were leaning more toward big-game epic type thingy...