 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
yin26
|
|
 |
|
Born Again Optimist
This space reserved for Darkstar.
|
Apr 1999
time: 16:08
| |
|
|
Mostly these are simple cost-to-benefit ratio type decisions. Would Events/Quests, and the costs associated with developing them, "pay for themselves" with increased sales? Firaxis either thought that they weren't worth the dev costs OR that there simply wasn't enough time and resources to get it done well by the publisher's deadline.
That second half of the sentence spells the end to many a really good idea in gaming. In that context, once you add the fact that modders having proven their ability to add these in later, and you can imagine why the dev team would focus on other core elements of the game (like a good AI and unit balance, for instance).
I doubt there was a conversation that went like:
"Hey, we've got tons of extra time and resources, so should we do Events/Quests?"
"Events/Quests are the children of Satan, the 4 horsemen of gaming, the Kiss of Death. If we had a million extra dollars and 3 more years of dev time, I'd cut off my thumbs before putting them in Col."
I bet it was more like:
"Yeah, that WOULD be great, but we just don't have the time and resources. Hopefully the modding community will put out some good work, and we'll do our best to support them"
Last edited by yin26 on 19-08-2008 at 20:38
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 15:08
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heraclitus
And modders can't do this why? Are you forgeting that the reason BtS has great AI is because an AI mod was incorporated into the patches. |
Good AI and unit balance is vital to the game being playable (and thus selling at all). Events are cool, but they're secondary (Tertiary?).
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Clovis, CA
|
Oct 2001
time: 13:08
| |
|
|
What do you have in mind where events and quests are concerned?
Now, maybe I'm a little behind the curve with regard to Civ games, having not played 4 (though I played 3 extensively), but I'm not sure what you mean by "quests" in the context of Colonization. Personally, I prefer for the gameplay to flow naturally from the interaction between static elements and dynamic elements. I burn down that village because it suits my strategy, not because I need to "go to Arawak village X and Get Ye Flask."
Sure, I've done that sort of thing plenty in Pirates!, and it fits well (conquer a town, install a governor, and, oh yeah, grab that Evil Spaniard (tm) while I'm there).
But maybe this isn't what you have in mind where quests are concerned, so please elaborate.
As to events, did you play the original Colonization? It already had natives occasionally showing up and giving gifts of resources, begging for food, making demands, or attacking. After a while, a mineral resource is depleted. Sometimes a colonist spontaneously develops a speciality... but of course, none of these things are "random events" but rather flow directly from the way the game works. And buildings are sufficiently valuable in Col that I would be PISSED if there were something like random fires destroying buildings or something.
So elaborate. What do you have in mind?
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 15:08
| |
|
|
He's referring to something specific to Civ4, yes. They are sometimes "build X units and get Y reward" (quests), and sometimes they're "X random thing happens, either good or bad stuff happens to you, sometimes you have a choice between which good/bad thing happens".
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
Belgrade, Serbia
|
Sep 2001
time: 22:08
| |
|
|
Actually, "build X and get Y reward" thing could really flow well with the game, if done as King requests.
Do something, and I reward you (or don't get angry more).
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Clovis, CA
|
Oct 2001
time: 13:08
| |
|
|
Is there a historical precedent for the King making specific requests of the colonies, as opposed to just raising taxes and then buying whatever it is he needs? I ask because I really don't like adding that sort of thing in unless there's a really good reason. I believe the scale of the simulation should be considered. When the game is about general economic development, and then it suddenly becomes personal, that strikes me as an an interruption in the flow of the game. It just seems gimmicky.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 15:08
| |
|
|
I think there are plenty of good reasons (such as making the gameplay less smooth), and less of a TBS and more of an RPG, which is not the point (at least of the base game). I certainly think you could have them and have an interesting game, but it would be much less 'simple', and usually for the base game, simple is better. Just like with Civ4 - they started with Simple, and made a game that had excellent gameplay value, and then added on features as they saw how people played and how the game balance worked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
game developers may as |
| |
|
|
