As someone who's currently doing something similar (trying to represent dynamic history in an enjoyable game), I can only say that it's impossible to perfectly fuse the two. A game that is representative of actual history and the factors that influence historical trends and developments simply cannot be fun. You'd be putting something above game design that is inherently obstructive to good game design. And without good game design a game simply will not be fun.
A [overly] ambitious 4X simulation game
- Thread starter peter grimes
- Start date
Could you expand on this? I don't immediately see the conflict.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
having your franco-british empire collapse ca. 50 years after your hard work of forming it isn't fun
some historians consider history to be kinda deterministic, making it an issue trying to rewrite history / have any kind of influence on the events that happen (Europa Universalis 2 suffered from this very problem) making it dull to play, as you need to have influence on what is happening
historical empires are unstable, not dynamic
(assuming people want to play empire building games)
some players enjoy these things, most players don't
there's a reason your civilization iv empire doesn't split in two anymore (cough cough civ2)
some historians consider history to be kinda deterministic, making it an issue trying to rewrite history / have any kind of influence on the events that happen (Europa Universalis 2 suffered from this very problem) making it dull to play, as you need to have influence on what is happening
historical empires are unstable, not dynamic
(assuming people want to play empire building games)
some players enjoy these things, most players don't
there's a reason your civilization iv empire doesn't split in two anymore (cough cough civ2)
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
A...game? Now, if I remember correctly, a game has to be entertaining. How does overly complicated rules make for a fun game? I don't even think there's a learning curve, more of a vertical wall. How would the player even know if their action was what caused an outcome, as opposed to the several billion other factors at play here?
Furthermore, it requires supercomputers to simulate the Earth's climate. How does the creator propose to run this on your typical desktop?
Furthermore, it requires supercomputers to simulate the Earth's climate. How does the creator propose to run this on your typical desktop?
I know nothing about formal historical scholarship in these matters, but are you saying that something like Napoleon's conquests, or the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt were pretty much the result of deterministic processes?
Perhaps naively, I have no trouble imaging a scenario where the player is able to take actions on both large and small scales simultaneously, and the computer is running the background work on the other agents...
If he is, then he would be wrong. (And I don't believe he is, but his post is hard to parse.) Those things, and especially most wars (warfare being pretty much 'the reason states existed' for most of their history) were chiefly contingent events.
The development of the "new military history" in the 1950s and 1960s was an exercise in attempting to systematize a more deterministic approach to the history of warfare, and by and large, while it has improved our understanding of how things happened, it has not really changed the fundamental calculus. Unless a conflict is ridiculously lopsided, it's basically impossible to predict an outcome, let alone who wins, before the war is actually concluded. Battle is in significant part a lottery, subject to the vicissitudes of weather, the initiative of individual soldiers, and that peculiar inchoate thing called "morale". Empires have fallen because of a trick of the wind, or because of one man getting sick at the wrong (or right) time, or because of a general deciding to do something not because of reasoned argument but because he felt in his gut that it was the right thing to do.
What the "new military history" did, in terms of long-term trends, mostly ended up creating something that was not a deterministic framework, but really a mass of contextualization for contingency. I can't imagine trying to simulate it in any meaningful depth.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
if wars were modeled the eu2 very detailed historical way, the provinces you conquered would often simply defect historically rather than actually being conquered.. like when you win the hundred years war against france as england, suddenly the war is over, you're told that you lost and you lose all of your french holdings. that's linear gameplay when it's worst.
i want that scenario too, but even if we didn't go by the eu2 model which was linear, the more dynamic things are, the less you are in control; if the whole world acts without your consent, making an empire conquering you outside your control... it's frustrating for many players
although this particular project is more about worldbuilding and immersion than actual empirebuilding i think
edit: and no, i didn't talk about wars in particular, it was more... well, most social/industrial events happening as they did. i never talk about warfare, i often talk about the other stuff while knowing nothing about either. i do know, however, that materialist history is, in the end, somewhat deterministic and while the ways things happen might vary (like exactly which guy invented the lightbulb and when) things are bound to end up in some concrete situation (electrical revolution in western europe and the us)
and sorry for the format, i'm not capitalizing a lot atm. it's also generally a hint that you should listen to other people more, like dachs, because i'm not that smart with most things
i want that scenario too, but even if we didn't go by the eu2 model which was linear, the more dynamic things are, the less you are in control; if the whole world acts without your consent, making an empire conquering you outside your control... it's frustrating for many players
although this particular project is more about worldbuilding and immersion than actual empirebuilding i think
edit: and no, i didn't talk about wars in particular, it was more... well, most social/industrial events happening as they did. i never talk about warfare, i often talk about the other stuff while knowing nothing about either. i do know, however, that materialist history is, in the end, somewhat deterministic and while the ways things happen might vary (like exactly which guy invented the lightbulb and when) things are bound to end up in some concrete situation (electrical revolution in western europe and the us)
and sorry for the format, i'm not capitalizing a lot atm. it's also generally a hint that you should listen to other people more, like dachs, because i'm not that smart with most things
Well, perhaps my statement was a little too absolute, but you would have to be pretty damn good to accomplish this.
First of all, there is some kind of conflict in what people usually expect from a historical simulation (with the game aspect not even entering into it). If a simulator is deterministic, there is no point to it - you might just as well read history books outright. So people want to be able to go off the rails and create alternate histories. But on the other hand, people expect certain things from a historical simulator - the Middle Ages have to feel like what you know as the Middle Ages, and you want the Early Modern era to feature the elements you're used to, even though you have decided to alter the course of history in the ancient era or whatever. In short, people want to play butterfly, but underestimate the effects of the butterfly (it's basically the same symptom that shows in many badly written alternate histories).
Games are a different matter altogether. To quote Sid Meier, games are about "interesting decisions". The fun comes from making decisions and dealing with their results. Now if you want to make a game more like "real history" and introduce models for things like language diffusion or technological diffusion and so on, you take these choices out of the hands of the player (otherwise these models would be pointless). I doubt most players would be satisfied with the level of control the typical leader of a historical polity had.
Another aspect is the level of abstraction a game requires. You generally want things to be quantified to judge your options, but things like research or production points don't exist in reality, and adoptiong them would run counter to your idea to model real history. On the other hand, without them the player would just stumble through the game, unable to see if what you did was good or bad and what you could do to affect that. Not very fun to most people.
OK, now i see both your points. Thanks for the explanations.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
that said i understand your sentiment
if he pulls if off i'll get greater nerdgasm
if he pulls if off i'll get greater nerdgasm
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
To be fair and I say that with "for all its glory" in mind and much appreciation for what you are doing: Civ4 is a piss poor launch pad for actual history. It is a game with an overall quit simple game mechanic, a game which has historic flavor. Whatever the possibility for a fusion of actual history and fun play - Civ4 is setting the bar reaaaly low.
Yeah, obviously. But this is a symptom of the phenomenon I was trying to describe. Civ4 is a lousy historical simulator because it's not trying to be, but it's a good game because of its simple game mechanics (complexity from simplicity is the goal, not complexity from complicatedness).
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
This brings up the question whether the original idea in the OP would necessarily produce a good or playable game. The more realistic the simulation the less control the player would have and the less satisfactory the game dynamics would be. Is this a reasonable conclusion?
People like games because they are well-defined and mastery is possible.
Real life is messy and in the end everyone loses.
People like games because they are well-defined and mastery is possible.
Real life is messy and in the end everyone loses.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
In any case- Civ4 didn't even try. And complexity can in deed be something that is fun in its own right - when well flavored. I think one thing is clear - a game with heavy emphasize on actual or semi-historic alternative developments will target people who want to dwell into game experience. Traditional simple strategy game play as found in say Civ4 in deed can not be it.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I've got a few ideas in mind. The big chip makers aren't really stepping up to sell 16+ core computers yet. I wonder if it's going to take some push form newer competitors.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/adapteva/parallella-a-supercomputer-for-everyone
Have you ever played Rise of Mankind or Caveman to Cosmos... They are great gameplay mods but do so by becoming WAY more complex. The idea is to add content diversity by other means. I mean Borderlands has millions of guns.. because there's parameters that combine factorially to make a lot of options!
Thanks for sharing the story! I don't know how much I'll be able to do myself, but I've definitely started a bit of a following and already have some folks seeking to set up a VPS for open source development. Hope to see you around /r/Simulate! Cheers!
This would be my argument, yes.
What did Civ4 not even try? Historical simulation? Of course not, because it's trying to be a game. And of course complexity is good, but it's all about how it's achieved. Go for example is amazingly complex for its simple set of rules.
