Can it get any more simplistic?

[Rantz]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Mr. Emrich´s highly acclaimed boardgame doesn´t at all look to me like 'a bunch of disparate elements'. Perhaps you should have given him some more time to finish his draft?

there's a vast difference between the aforementioned boardgame and what was done on MOO3. I'm not going to comment anymore than that out of manners and respect. Not that I don't want to mind you, but again, easy to extrapolate and make assumptions when you don't have all the facts.

mind you, I understand what it's like to extrapolate when you don't have the facts. I've done it plenty myself. But, there are details and information that you do not have that make your statements and assumptions erroneous.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Rantz


having been in the meetings, I can promise that it wasn't an IG marketing driven desicion and that the 'mass market' was never the driving factor in the refocus of the game.

CIV3 played NO part in ANY design choice that mas made on the game, and the entire refocus of the game was to make it a cohesive gameplay experience rather than a bunch of disparate elements that sounded really good on paper, but had no feeling of importance or being part of a greater whole or gameplay experience.

But, again, the facts tend to ruin conspiracy and the overwhelming desire to believe that greater evil forces are out to muck with anything you care about, so feel free to ignore the facts ash.

let me know if you still feel like it's a 'simpleton' game after playing it.

oh, and for the record "opressometer"? that actual label and name is ALL the doing of Mr. Emrich. Was from the start. So, again, pesky facts getting in the way...

"I have good sources" = "I made it up and it sounds good"

There...does this make it easier for you?

[ashbery]

Originally posted by Rantz
But, again, the facts tend to ruin conspiracy and the overwhelming desire to believe that greater evil forces are out to muck with anything you care about

LOL, i dont go with conspiracy theory's and i'm sure it will be a good game, after all moo was great but some of us wanted the Simgalaxy that alan talked about.

[ashbery]

Originally posted by GP


"I have good sources" = "I made it up and it sounds good"

There...does this make it easier for you?

Then my good sources made it up then, because i was told that the old design would've worked but they changed design focus and alan was sacked.

[TheMaestro]

Who knows anymore.

[Grumbold]

Well from the limited exposure I've had to it, GalCiv seems to be the game that will introduce real dilemmas about how to lead your race forward. Perhaps this was only possible by trading off the ability to play more than one race and multiplayer? I would be delighted to take time over my turns in single player deciding whether to raise taxes, hold free elections, how much to fund education, whether to eradicate primitive life on planets I colonise etc. That simply doesn't tie in with a multiplayer game where the emphasis is in smooth fast turns to get a game done in a reasonable time frame.

I do believe that Alan had the right idea though. No games became classic or bestsellers by just trying to repeat old tricks. They all had to have something original about them, even in the most shallow of genres like FPS. That said, the recent reviews of MoO3 are still stuffed full of details we never had before. Will it be enough to please those of us who don't want a space RTS? I have no idea, but I plan to find out first hand. With the liberal returns policy in the UK I get 10 days to experiment without losing my money.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by vee4473
I'm sure they know whjat they are doing.

Just because we all want them to be competent, doesn't mean they are.

But we must grasp onto hope!!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Rantz
Not that I don't want to mind you, but again, easy to extrapolate and make assumptions when you don't have all the facts.

mind you, I understand what it's like to extrapolate when you don't have the facts. I've done it plenty myself. But, there are details and information that you do not have that make your statements and assumptions erroneous.

Rantz: I recommend your polite and balanced answer. And, yes, point taken, there may have conceivably been problems with the original design I do not know about.

So I propose an alternative -and very un-conspiracy-like- theory of what happened: You reacted to a majority of the playtesters, who found the game confusing.

In my opinion, what you should have done is: Fire the playtesters.

Nah, I´m not being capricious here; let me explain:

The purpose of a maze is to be confusing. The purpose of a good strategy game -at least according to SOME of us- is to be maze-like. Me thinks the play-testers didn´t understand this. But that does not at all mean there wouldn´t have been a market for this sort of game. So, seriously: Instead of replacing Mr. Emrich, I believe you would have better replaced the testers with people understanding his approach. Or simply told them: 'Confusing? GREAT!! We are getting there!'

Playtesters only exist to remove the bugs. They do not exist to remove the vision.

By streamlining everything, I think you destroyed the maze.

[Comrade Tribune]

Here´s an illustration: Note that even the blind alleys serve a purpose.

[Rantz]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

In my opinion, what you should have done is: Fire the playtesters.

:::snippety::::

By streamlining everything, I think you destroyed the maze.

Again, I can understand your assumption. The folks who analyzed the game at 'initial alpha' were not just random playtesters. It wasn't given to a 'testing group' at that stage. It was an internal review, done by folks who had experience in completing games from start to finish, and folks who had been consultants in making sure we were 'true to MOO', members of the design team who had been there since day one, as well as grognard associates looked at it and basically all came to the same conclusion.

A game (sims included here) is all about action = reaction. If the player changes 5 settings and there is no discernable *associated* reaction or change, then the gameplay feedback mechanism fails and the player, no matter how hardcore, question whether they are actually playing the game and having any impact on it's development, or if stuff is just happening regardless.

In a Sim, it's establishing the conditions (at the very basic core gameplay element) however complex you make that, and however many detailed knobs and levers you put in, that is the core mechanic. From there reactions should occur based on the parameters you've set and you should have *some* idea of a.) something happening because you set a condition, and b.) feedback both good and bad in regards to the success of the condition set.

MOO3, prior to the refocus of the design did *not* have a sense of cause and effect that was clear enough for even those of us working on it, and KNEW what was going on under the hood. If you know the formulas, and that's the case, well there is a problem at hand.

Some individuals griped about the changes, and their griping is understandable since you always take it personally if something you worked on doesn't make it into a final product. God knows in my history in the gaming industry I've had too many counts where something I really sweated over and poured my heart into didn't make it into the game, and I know the gut reaction (because I've certainly said it at times) is "FOOLS!!! It would have been brilliant!"

and then, 4 months later, when my ego has healed, I realize "crap, they were right that would have totally not fit in the game, and would have just been a feature for the sake of having a feature. Note because it would have actually worked in the game."

Again, proof is in the product. MOO3 is far from simplistic. Haven't had any complaints from any grognards who have played it that it is even slightly on the simplistic or dumbed down side, and in our external invite beta group, we made sure to invite some folks that we knew were the type to scream loudly if we had betrayed the franchise, the spirit, or the depth of MOO.

Will *you* feel that way upon playing it? We'll find out soon enough

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Rantz




Will *you* feel that way upon playing it? We'll find out soon enough

hee hee hee

You set yourself up, again, with the "soon enough".


But, insightful post. interesting. Thanks for posting Rants.


One question, were these cause and effect deficiencies just discovered? Which seems very odd, since the game has been in beta testing for a while i gather.

Or were they discovered long ago and it is just taking longer to redo?

[Rantz]

Originally posted by vee4473

One question, were these cause and effect deficiencies just discovered? Which seems very odd, since the game has been in beta testing for a while i gather.

Or were they discovered long ago and it is just taking longer to redo?

the eval phase occured back in March/April of this year, hence the refocusiing of the design. All of the rework in terms of causality was completed by the end of April.

So, no we're not discovering that now...LOL

[vee4473]

ok, just asking.

it's a long time since April 2002 though...if ya get my drift...

[SeanV]

The purpose of a maze is to be confusing. The purpose of a good strategy game -at least according to SOME of us- is to be maze-like.

Whoa, CT, where did that come from? The purpose of a good strategy game is to be confusing? The kind of confusing where you wander around for hours on end wondering if you have been here before, or if there ever was a before?

Isn't the whole purpose of strategy to pit mind against mind and idea against idea and let them fight it out with as little interference from Lady Luck and the Three Sisters of Fate as possible?

Or have I been living in a fantasy world all this time? Please tell me what is true and what is false... I'm really confused now.

[kalbear]

Well, again, this is kind of expected behavior.

When you have basically a finished product - the features are there, the code is basically done, etc, and you make some heavy design changes, it can be often harder than simply starting from scratch. Even if it isn't harder, it's a lot of work. There's the dev work that has to revisit code and change a whole lot of it, make sure things work according to the new design - which also has to be done. New graphics need to be implemented and moved about. That sort of thing.

And then there's test. A lot of the previous testing basically gets thrown out the window. All the regression needs to get run, creating all manner of bugs and issues. New tests need to be thought up to test the new design, new stress needs to be done.

And all the effort on manual testing? That's basically wasted.

Add to this that they weren't in the final testing phases of the game yet - that was work that they've basically gotten into recently - and I can see it taking 8 months. When this happened to Half-Life, for instance, it took another year to release.