Update on diplomacy stuff (back to the drawing board yet again).

[x4000]

Lots of good points made in here.  A few random responses:

1. I definitely agree that the Clone Plus One is a big problem.  It's part of why I try to pull from a lot of genres at once to come up with something new.

2. Then again, there are a lot of cases where Clone Plus One is something I WANT, if the original was good enough.  Keep giving me yearly Mario games, please.  I will buy those ever year, without fail, if Nintendo does.  Why?  I like playing Mario, and I want to see new levels and new twists on those platforming ideas.  But not so different that it's a completely other style of platformer.  This is really different to me from the Tower Defense or Endless Runner sort of iteration, because Mario games are a lot richer in the first place and something that I enjoy far more.

3. There are also Clone Plus Five (heh) cases that I think are notable.  Basically someone tries to do something, and comes up with a good idea that is really buried in bad execution or just misses the market or who knows what exactly.  But for some reason there's something really amiss that could be fixed... yet the kernel of something great is there.  Repeating that thing, but changing the things that are wrong with it is a great way to refine things. 

4. Heck, even with something that was already fun (like Unreal Tournament), I really enjoyed the later iterations (and was annoyed they stopped making them) because they were consistently refining something that I enjoyed.  I wouldn't shovel money at them every year by any stretch, but there is something to be said for taking an idea and continuously refining it.  That's actually a perfect way to kind of keep the basic content that is an intro for new players, and then spend the rest of your time adding really advanced stuff for the more expert audience.  If it wasn't for the need to reinvent all the graphics of the basics and recode from partial-scratch, then that would really be a very awesome way to approach things.

5. Number 4 actually makes a case for DLC being the most awesome thing ever.  Mario Kart is even embracing this lately.  They released Mario Kart 8 and it is freaking completely awesome.  But I wanted more, like most people.  They then released two DLC packs that just had more levels and more karts and characters.  That's all I wanted!  The newer levels are harder and more interesting, and it's awesome.  Oh, hey, they actually did that with Super Luigi Bros. U, too -- it's practically a remix of Super Mario Bros U, but I love how freaking incredibly hard it is.  I wish they'd do that with Super Mario 3D World -- that's perhaps the best Mario game ever made, and aside from Champion's Road I pretty much have that mastered.

6. I have to disagree on technical limitations being a bad thing.  I started out being a romhacker on NES games, and mixed with that I used to use a lot of level editors for games in the 90s, and was programming for DOS in QBASIC.  I spend a good few years with DirectDraw7 and having to work around those limitations.  I've spent a lot of time studying mobile games and how they get around their input limitations as well as how they present HUD information in such a small space, and without the ability to hover a cursor over anything.  Now, granted, that doesn't mean I want to MAKE or even play (too much) games with those amount of limitations.  But so much innovation comes out of that sort of space that it can be really a source of learning for the industry as a whole.  Usually we learn the wrong lessons as a group, sigh, but so it goes.

[Misery]

IMHO one limiting factor is that games keep starting from scratch.

Devs keep trying to cater to practically blank slate gamers in aiming for the greatest available demographics. Every game has to be accessible enough to someone who never read the manual and possibly never looked at the tutorial (if present) either. So everything has to be shallow enough to be understood at a glance. Shooters must be simple enough to appeal to the CoD-MP or e-sports crowd, strategy games constantly re-hash the same mechanics and interfaces so nobody has to learn anything new, and every new iteration of a game must be made simpler so that more new players can be gained. There's just an infinite plateau of ever-the-same-rehash where high-end, high-complexity games for players who'd actually invest some effort ought to be.

It's understandable of course, especially financially. But I also think that there's some things to be said for catering to niche audiences; provided that they are still large and generous enough to support the devs.

But where devs actually put in more content, and dare to allow greater complexity, while also keeping things somewhat balanced and working, the really memorable games pop up. The ones you can read stories about, that keep surprising and challenging players. Dwarf Fortress, EVE Online, AI War, ArmA, Kerbal Space Program, Jagged Alliance 2.1.13 - there's some of these in every genre. They're naturally rare, enjoyed by relatively small crowds, and development on them is always a huge effort - and development mistakes resulting in a lower game quality tend to be more than likely.
But they also grow old and keep being played, because there's so much content and complexity. They grow old and things keep being added; not taken away for future iterations.

I know this probably once again puts me into opposition to Kasnavada, but I'll stick to my point: Catering to niche audiences that can stomach a steep and prolonged learning curve will probably result in more interesting and memorable games than trying to make simple games for everybody.

PS: It may well be said that complex, content-rich games are the native domain of modders rather than financially insecure devs. Probably true.

I'll agree with alot of this.

At the same time though, I also agree with Kasnavada's bit about games not absolutely having to meet those specifications to be truly memorable.   It's just that the stuff you described seems to have a much higher chance of it.  I can think of a good number of games that are actually quite simple and accessible, but are just utterly fantastic.  And that's ME saying this, and I tend to just hate everything. 

But yeah, I wish more devs would go a similar route of constantly adding content and complexity without warping the original concept.  And if it has a tough learning curve, well, whatever, that's fine.  The game in question is usually very worth it.

Though I think one of the biggest complaints from alot of people is "Well I just dont have TIME for that sort of game".  That this sort of player will then pick up Generic Shooter #159347 and spend like 2000 hours on it doesnt stop them from saying that anyway.   To me, it's more that they're used to having things handed to them on a silver platter, and dont want to bother with, you know, effort.  I mean, once you get a handle on something like Dwarf Fortress or AI War, it's not like you NEED a 2 hour session with the game every time you play it in order to get some progress done.  You can play for 20 minutes if you want, save and exit whenever you feel like it, and you'll have accomplished stuff, as is the nature of those games. 

And just... ugh.  Bugs the hell outta me. 

I'm rather expecting that view to come from some people regarding THIS game too.  It definitely already has a ton of stuff to it, and it's not finished.  Even just the city stuff is complicated... the diplomacy stuff (or whatever you want to call it) sounds like it's gonna add alot more depth and sort of tie things together (which again is what I'm waiting for), but it's going to add even more complexity...  and thus, more effort.   

Granted, I can understand some of the frustration and confusion that goes along with learning something like this.  It took me FOREVER to learn DF, and I"m pretty sure I watched through, what, *50* tutorial videos?  AI War took quite awhile too.  But once I got it down, it's all second nature, and it's easy to then keep learning more from that foundation.  But still, that initial curve, more like a cliff, can be NASTY.


I forgot where else I was going with this.

[kasnavada]

It's just that the stuff you described seems to have a much higher chance of it.

I agree with something rather similar though. A game has a higher chance of being memorable if it can require complex gameplay. Difference is a FPS is "dumb", mechanic wise. I mean, point and shoot, right ? Yet the level needed to compete on CS on "pro" level requires a far more complex understanding of the game itself. Of course "complex" games, requiring the complex level of play in the first place would then seem to have an higher chance of being memorable.

Except that game complexity is not the only way to make a game memorable. That's what you are most attracted in a game, maybe, and what you remember "most". But to make a game memorable, you could also rely on other stuff like story, music, images, dunno what else. Also, you consider "working on something in order to achieve" noteworthy and worthwhile, and seem to consider that's everyone's case. It's not the case.

Second thing is game complexity is a "entry barrier", just like sound, image, story and so on. But... game complexity has a much higher impact on what you can get from the game. If you can't go through the first level because the learning curve is so hard, in a game with strong story elements, whatever you think you you might have created a strong connection to your fan-base with the story elements is wasted because people can't reach it. True, it is somewhat the same with sound and other stuff. I can't personally play much of guild of dungeoneering because I want to kill the bard. Still, my opinion is that game complexity is an higher barrier than other things.

That's why "my" criteria, flawed as it might get, requires if possible to have "most" to be able to finish the game (in easy mode), and requires a "hard mode" where complexity of play is present and necessary (to also attract other guys like you ).

[x4000]

That's why "my" criteria, flawed as it might get, requires if possible to have "most" to be able to finish the game (in easy mode), and requires a "hard mode" where complexity of play is present and necessary (to also attract other guys like you ).

That's my general criteria as well.  That said, the addendum to that is that completing it on easy mode has to still be fun.  Aka, even if the game isn't challenging, it should still be a good time for whatever reason.  FPS games typically get away with that by just being mechanically fun.  Pointing and shooting and seeing things blow up is FUN. 

Keith and I refer to this sort of thing as "bubble wrap popping fun," and we try to have an aspect of that so that even if the difficulty drops on someone (typically because they played on a cautiously-too-low difficulty level), then they are still having a good time.

The other ways to go are having a story that people care about so much that they won't care about low difficulty (only a handful of games ever did this, and I've never tried), or by having a creative element where the player is trying to make something and caught up in the process of doing that despite the "game" itself not being challenging.  Most citybuilders, a lot of survival games, and of course construction games like Minecraft all fall under that.

This article is super good, and something Erik pointed me to just yesterday: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/250367/Cities_Skylines_dev_Dont_punish_your_players_teach_them.php

[kasnavada]

The other ways to go are having a story that people care about so much that they won't care about low difficulty (only a handful of games ever did this, and I've never tried), or by having a creative element where the player is trying to make something and caught up in the process of doing that despite the "game" itself not being challenging.

I agree that "some" measure of difficulty is needed, but I don't really agree with that part. Most games have a low difficulty and are only designed to be played once. Like most RPGs, adventure and action games, a lot of simulation (racing) games. I'd also include most "campaigns" in game where the focus is multiplayer (Starcraft for example).

IMO, the approach I've spoken of in my post only works with games designed to be played multiple times. Which incidently is most of what you create. Unless the focus of the game itself is being difficult (bullet hell shooters, platformers like meat boy and some other genres...).

If a game is designed to be played once, then I'd say that it's better to have 75% of the game accessible for most (possibly including the end-game) by making it relatively "easy", and propose hard DLC / side quests only for the hardcore.


> About the article: what's said is reflected in the game design. Basically crime (and other limitations) don't unlock until you get to some population level and the game gets gradually harder because of it. It matches more or less what you did for the last federation tutorial. It's an interesting approach actually, but needs to be removed for hard mode =).

[x4000]

All makes a lot of sense.  And yeah, I was mostly thinking of my own sort of games, those that are for lots of replay.  When it comes to games that I just plan to play once, I mostly play on normal difficulty first.  And if I really love the mechanics, then let's go for more serious difficulty after that.  Otherwise I'm just ready to play something else.

That said, still, if I'm just absolutely wrecking everything in the game and there's no other source of satisfaction to be had (no pride in what I'm doing, etc), then I am absolutely done with the game pretty fast.  A lot of mobile games fall into that category, and most campaigns for most RTS games are unplayable to me for that reason (among others).

[kasnavada]

Then again, for some reason, given what you design, I don't picture you as the "typical" "low level" strategy gamer that those are aimed for.

I mean I hardly play platformers anymore because as I finished games on the level of TMHT and Bayou Billy long ago, they're all easy. Strategy games are the same, I played so many of them that it's rather easy to find one or two units that break the campaign and make it too simple. I think a lot of people on this forum have the same issue. Their game experience make it so games are easy, as a whole.

However, I'm lucky in that regard. I don't care about difficulty levels that much. What is interesting to me is discovering new game mechanics and / or new way to apply them .

[x4000]

Yep, a lot of that is true.  With a lot of games I find them fun until I'm proficient with their mechanics, and then there's no more challenge so I'm done.  But I have a fun time while I'm on the way.

[dfinlay]

But where devs actually put in more content, and dare to allow greater complexity, while also keeping things somewhat balanced and working, the really memorable games pop up. The ones you can read stories about, that keep surprising and challenging players. Dwarf Fortress, EVE Online, AI War, ArmA, Kerbal Space Program, Jagged Alliance 2.1.13 - there's some of these in every genre. They're naturally rare, enjoyed by relatively small crowds, and development on them is always a huge effort - and development mistakes resulting in a lower game quality tend to be more than likely.
But they also grow old and keep being played, because there's so much content and complexity. They grow old and things keep being added; not taken away for future iterations.

I think you are falsely equating complexity, challenge and good design. Extreme difficulty of strategy and strong design does not neccessarily require lots of content. As an example, the roguelike Brogue is quite challenging and (while it has a few definite design flaws), is an extremely well designed game. It does this by having less content than the vast majority of its competitors. Brogue has less items, less enemies, far less character stats (HP and Strength only) and less mechanics than any other major roguelike I know of. However, that means that everything it does have can be more carefully calibrated and have a definite place in the game that changes the way it works. Most items you get will change the way you play. Your tactics against each enemy type will be quite different, etc.

As a somewhat larger game, with a lot more content, I take the example of the game Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, which is definitely up there in the most well-designed games I've played category and has been being worked on in one form or another, after release, for over 20 years. In spite of being one of the sorts of games I think you are talking about (large, complex and iterated on for decades), nearly half of what the developers (for good reason) do is remove content from the game. It's a pruning process and more complexity isn't neccessarily better.

Of course, I am not saying that minimalism is the only way to go. For example, I think AI War is a great game and it is very far from minimalism, but in general, I think subtractive design, where everything that doesn't work perfectly is removed, as opposed to additive, where more and more complexity is shoved in, is very much undervalued.

[x4000]

but in general, I think subtractive design, where everything that doesn't work perfectly is removed, as opposed to additive, where more and more complexity is shoved in, is very much undervalued.

I've been having similar thoughts myself over the last year.  I'm not a minimalist any more than it sounds like you are, and everyone here knows my proclivities for huge amounts of content.  But there's definitely something to be said for tightness of design.

[keith.lamothe]

but in general, I think subtractive design, where everything that doesn't work perfectly is removed, as opposed to additive, where more and more complexity is shoved in, is very much undervalued.

I've been having similar thoughts myself over the last year.  I'm not a minimalist any more than it sounds like you are, and everyone here knows my proclivities for huge amounts of content.  But there's definitely something to be said for tightness of design.

* crosses fingers

[x4000]

but in general, I think subtractive design, where everything that doesn't work perfectly is removed, as opposed to additive, where more and more complexity is shoved in, is very much undervalued.

I've been having similar thoughts myself over the last year.  I'm not a minimalist any more than it sounds like you are, and everyone here knows my proclivities for huge amounts of content.  But there's definitely something to be said for tightness of design.

* crosses fingers

Ditto.

You've noticed how much I've been having you rip out in the last couple of weeks, of course.

[keith.lamothe]

Ditto.

You've noticed how much I've been having you rip out in the last couple of weeks, of course.

And also the huge amounts of new stuff going in to replace it.

[nas1m]

Kinda off/back-to topic: How are things shaking out with to the new events system? Are you ready to share some more detail on how the game will play / what  gameplay you are going for once ist is in ?

[x4000]

Ditto.

You've noticed how much I've been having you rip out in the last couple of weeks, of course.

And also the huge amounts of new stuff going in to replace it.

True.  Generally simplified versions of the other things that were over-wrought, or things that are more inline with other elements of the game that do work.  But yeah, point take.

Kinda off/back-to topic: How are things shaking out with to the new events system? Are you ready to share some more detail on how the game will play / what  gameplay you are going for once ist is in ?

It's coming along, although I don't have much more to share yet.  We've been kind of bouncing between the event stuff and other stuff that needs to happen in this similar timeframe.  The event stuff replaces a lot of other components, and a lot of other components also need to be simplified to really work ideally with the events stuff, so there's been a lot of work on that sort of thing.

Everybody's favorite mechanics that are used the most are not being messed with, but a lot of the stuff that was generating lots of confusion and bug reports, or which was just outright not being used at all, is being repurposed to all support events instead.  So that's been a bit of a slower process than I originally thought, although we're still on schedule in terms of our internal D-Day of "must be done by then or release date changes."

A number of other goodies are also happening at this same time, such as the new difficulty settings setup screen stuff (finally!).  I felt like that was really going to be something that was needed in order to properly test events, since it will let people tune them to amounts that feel good to them.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of events are being designed, both at a conceptual level and then partly at a data-model level.  The display and interface from the user end is pretty well all designed, and a large part of it is implemented, which I'm pleased with. 

The spreadsheets for importing event definitions, and then the code to trigger them in a variety of ways and have supporting ties into buildings and whatnot, is the thing that is lagging behind the most.  I'm on like version 8 (at least) of that particular data model, but it's been getting progressively clearer every time I make a pass at it.  I've been approaching it from both ends, and those spreadsheets are kind of where it all meets in the middle.

Anyway, so it's coming along well in the main.  I don't have a really good ETA on this by any stretch of the imagination, but it's doing happy things in general.