I'm a friend who's never heard of AI War. Convince me to back in 3 sentences.

[Clasmir]

I do think one thing AI War and many other games have had trouble with in the past is getting people into the game in a way that doesn't completely overwhelm them with choices.

I have to agree with this. Several months ago I purchased (on sale) "Distant Worlds: Universe". Every time I try to pick the game up I'm turned away for two reasons. One, the UI overwhelms with sensory overload and the UI art looks like something an engineer would create (ie. blocky and ugly). Two, the game overwhelms you with attempts at making it easier - tutorials litter the UI everywhere!  Way to many choices.

One of their claims is that the universe will basically run itself. You can pick what areas you want to "game in". Sounds great, but there is simply way to much crap on the UI. 

I think a better solution for new users would be to start the game showing only 10% of the UI / functionality! I don't mean disabled, I mean the UI components are not visible. By default the user must find a buried option to enable the full UI.

Don't even call the beginning a tutorial mode. Just start the game with 10% showing and as you progress, you "show" more and more of the UI. 


 

[Tridus]

Don't even call the beginning a tutorial mode. Just start the game with 10% showing and as you progress, you "show" more and more of the UI.

This is one of the reasons why games like Civ start off with few things you can do and add more as the game progresses. Aside from clear progression, it makes what you *should* be focusing on in the early game really clear, because there isn't anything else in the way.

Distant Worlds also sounds like a case of it just doing too much. If the universe "runs itself", why is that stuff in the game at all? What's interesting about it to the player? Lots of space games have a nasty habit of trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink in, under the premise that more = better. Which for a game, isn't true. More = complexity. It has to serve some purpose and lead for interesting things for the players to do, without overwhelming, to be better.

[kasnavada]

Don't even call the beginning a tutorial mode. Just start the game with 10% showing and as you progress, you "show" more and more of the UI.

This is one of the reasons why games like Civ start off with few things you can do and add more as the game progresses. Aside from clear progression, it makes what you *should* be focusing on in the early game really clear, because there isn't anything else in the way.

Distant Worlds also sounds like a case of it just doing too much. If the universe "runs itself", why is that stuff in the game at all? What's interesting about it to the player? Lots of space games have a nasty habit of trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink in, under the premise that more = better. Which for a game, isn't true. More = complexity. It has to serve some purpose and lead for interesting things for the players to do, without overwhelming, to be better.

I agree so much with that. Fortunately some editors are beginning to see this point.
Points which are awful for me include the whole of "let's force the player to use every weapon of its ship manually to be efficient", or "let's have the player design each ship at each new piece of hardware researched, and we've got 1200 of them !!!!!!"... In games focussed on combat, ok why not. But in economy-oriented 4X games ? Where the goal is to outproduce and / or outmaneuver your opponent so you never fight an even battle ?

Same, game that asks you to set trade routes manually ? Every turn ? Multiple times ? Also, why would the "government" (or whatever administration that the player is supposed to be) be in charge of trade routes in the first place ? Kind of the point of having a private sector. They set-up the trade, the central authority gains taxes from it.

[x4000]

Cheers folks!  As you may have noticed, some of your wording made it into the video in general, and also into the copy as well.  Some really really great explanations there.

But there was also an element of really explaining it from a player's point of view in a succinct fashion that you don't get without just having the quote kind of standing by itself.  Some backers on the kickstarter asked us to include some player quotes as well as the reviewer ones, and so I figured that these would be the most natural to pull out since they are also succinctly explaining what the game IS from a variety of points of view.

Anyhow, you can see all that live here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/arcengames/ai-war-ii

If there's any issue with how I've represented any of your comments, then please do let me know!  But I think that we were faithful to what you were intending, I hope. 

Incidentally we didn't play favorites with whose comments we used -- it just was about what fit with what section in the document and what explained things most concisely for a given purpose, not about who said it.  There are a couple of people in particular I feel a bit guilty not having quotes from, since you're pillars of the community, but please know it's no sort of value judgement or... anything negative towards you.

Thank you so much for all your help leading up to this campaign.  The journey's only begun, of course!
Chris

[chemical_art]

Really neat!

[Vinco]

I like the use of quotes.  I certainly have no issue being one of them.