How to simulate civilizations.

[yung.carl.jung]

All the truly great games that I have played were great because they were limiting you in one way or another. Infact I would say that few things increase creativity as much as being somehow, albeit not completely, limited.

The more limited you are, say by mechanics, the closer you attempt to get to know the mechanics. Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo is not the best fighting game because it has the biggest arsenal of moves, it is the best fighting game because it is (a little bit..) balanced and had players explore the intricacies of every move, the amount of pixels that go with every kick, the no-harm zones, the animation time and so on.

Starcraft was not so great because it had the most units, nor did you nearly as many factions as in, say Age of Empires 2, it just had extremely solid mechanics, few tightly balanced factions and a limited roster of units and techs, that somehow still lead to close to an unlimited amount of strategies.

You are attempting the complete opposite here and in my opinion this is already a big design failure. As many possibilities as Civ V gave you, it still heavily restricted you in some areas, like the limited technology tree and the victory conditions.

You seem curious why people are not enthralled with your idea.. Maybe they just don't think it's as good as you do

 

[Mouthwash]

All the truly great games that I have played were great because they were limiting you in one way or another. Infact I would say that few things increase creativity as much as being somehow, albeit not completely, limited.

The more limited you are, say by mechanics, the closer you attempt to get to know the mechanics. Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo is not the best fighting game because it has the biggest arsenal of moves, it is the best fighting game because it is (a little bit..) balanced and had players explore the intricacies of every move, the amount of pixels that go with every kick, the no-harm zones, the animation time and so on.

Starcraft was not so great because it had the most units, nor did you nearly as many factions as in, say Age of Empires 2, it just had extremely solid mechanics, few tightly balanced factions and a limited roster of units and techs, that somehow still lead to close to an unlimited amount of strategies.

You are attempting the complete opposite here and in my opinion this is already a big design failure. As many possibilities as Civ V gave you, it still heavily restricted you in some areas, like the limited technology tree and the victory conditions.

So all sandbox games are wrongly designed? I mean, I'm not asking people to play as everything- it's their choice what role they want.

As for limits, think my rules are very restricting; they're just not as straightforward as "move, collect $$$ and shoot."

 

[trader/warrior]

All the truly great games that I have played were great because they were limiting you in one way or another. Infact I would say that few things increase creativity as much as being somehow, albeit not completely, limited.

The more limited you are, say by mechanics, the closer you attempt to get to know the mechanics. Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo is not the best fighting game because it has the biggest arsenal of moves, it is the best fighting game because it is (a little bit..) balanced and had players explore the intricacies of every move, the amount of pixels that go with every kick, the no-harm zones, the animation time and so on.

Starcraft was not so great because it had the most units, nor did you nearly as many factions as in, say Age of Empires 2, it just had extremely solid mechanics, few tightly balanced factions and a limited roster of units and techs, that somehow still lead to close to an unlimited amount of strategies.

You are attempting the complete opposite here and in my opinion this is already a big design failure. As many possibilities as Civ V gave you, it still heavily restricted you in some areas, like the limited technology tree and the victory conditions.

You seem curious why people are not enthralled with your idea.. Maybe they just don't think it's as good as you do

I know this is the conventional game-design advice, you cut your concept down to a minimum, and then cut it down some more. But honestly I have experienced more games that seem to have suffered for this rather than the opposite. No Man's Sky, Spore, SimCity 2013, Total War series, BW2, TES, and on and on. Streamlining kills games for the people who care a lot about them. Constantly gimping replayability cutting the games down for a product that will review well with journalists and casual customers that play 5-10 hours rather than the hundreds actual fans want to play. I just don't believe in this "common knowlege" any more. Starcraft and Street Fighter were relatively filled out games at the time they were released for their genres.

CK2 and other PDX games, Modded M2TW, OTTD, DF, Modded to hell minecraft, SC4, EVE online, I could go on and on, these are bloated beyond belief and that's what makes them so great you could play them for years.

Not to mention both games you mentioned gained their status for competetive multiplayer which is very different from making a lasting single-player sandbox experience.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I know this is the conventional game-design advice, you cut your concept down to a minimum, and then cut it down some more.

But honestly I have experienced more games that seem to have suffered for this rather than the opposite. No Man's Sky, Spore, SimCity 2013, Total War series, TES, and on and on. Streamlining kills games for the people who care a lot about them. Constantly gimping replayability cutting the games down for a product that will review well with journalists and casual customers that play 5-10 hours rather than the hundreds actual fans want to play.

Not to mention both games you mentioned gained their status for competetive multiplayer which is very different from making a lasting single-player experience.

I didn't know that was conventional advice actually, I'm not very in touch with gaming or the industry

I have not played any of the games you mentioned aside from the elder scrolls series and I very much agree, I think they got rid of some of the best parts with Oblivion.

If we keep sticking to concrete examples I have the feeling we will not get very far, it was not the best idea to engage that on my behalf

Obviously I will not try to refute them when I agree completely.

You introduce this word: streamlining. I don't think it has much of anything to do with the point that I am making, since rather than "making a game less complex" it means "removing those elements that casual gamers do not care about".

often times streamlining can also add new clutter. To go with my earlier example: Oblivion added the possibility to buy your own castle (you do.. what exactly with it?); games like GTA V have tons of added nonsensical purely aesthetic content, in this aspect gaming companies will try to cater to their exact userbase as much as possible, often with gimmicks they know will sell.

Your last point carries a lot of weight. Taken.

So all sandbox games are wrongly designed? I mean, I'm not asking people to play as everything- it's their choice what role they want.

As for limits, think my rules are very restricting; they're just not as straightforward as "move, collect $$$ and shoot."

Even sandbox games are limited in a way, no? And so is the game you are proposing. What I am criticizing is not your actual game, but rather your idea of what makes it great. Reading your text it feels like you want it to be almost all-encompassing. I don't think that should be the basis for any game, really. Or a work of art, a piece of music, a book, a film, a poem.

 

[trader/warrior]

Ah, well you make some good points as well. I just had a bit of a "don't cut down mah vidya games!" outrage moment. I have read several game articles that say this is very much conventional knowlege with game-publishers, but indeed the problem may be mostly with how they interpret and implement this. Also, you know, actually getting a full game out on budget without tons of bugs plays into it a bit as well of course.

 

[Lexicus]

I would really like a game that specifically simulates Roman politics. Been playing a lot of EB2 and really missing the civil war mechanic from base RTW, even though it was quite flawed.

If someone made a cool politics simulator and attached it to the EB2 mod for M2TW so that each faction had active politics and the potential for civil war I would probably never play another game again.

 

[crabapple]

A game that I played, ( In alpha) that is trying to simulate a civilization, and an environment is Eco https://www.strangeloopgames.com/eco/ ( now in Alpha 4). This game is focused on economy/environment/human interplay, check it out might give you inspiration

 

[thecrazyscot]

I would really like a game that specifically simulates Roman politics. Been playing a lot of EB2 and really missing the civil war mechanic from base RTW, even though it was quite flawed.

If someone made a cool politics simulator and attached it to the EB2 mod for M2TW so that each faction had active politics and the potential for civil war I would probably never play another game again.

Do you have a cool $125 to blow and a group of friends willing to dedicate 8-12 hours to a game? Republic of Rome is your (board) game.

Not what you were actually looking for, I know, but every chance I get to show that game off to people I take.

 

[Lexicus]

I have $125 to blow but as for friends...

 

[BvBPL]

If you have $125 of blow then you'll have some friends.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, I have friends, but friends who'd be willing to play that game with me are another story...

 

[thecrazyscot]

I have the same problem...only able to gather people to play it every few years

 

[Mouthwash]

What I am criticizing is not your actual game, but rather your idea of what makes it great. Reading your text it feels like you want it to be almost all-encompassing. I don't think that should be the basis for any game, really. Or a work of art, a piece of music, a book, a film, a poem.

This is a simulation. It's just one that a game can be played inside. You could add different races and magic to the idea tree if you wanted a fantasy setting.

 

[dusters]

What do you think would be the biggest challenges?

Selling this product, I guess.

 

[Leoreth]

I'm with yung.carl.jung. Simulation and game are orthogonal to each other. There is no reason to assume that creating a good simulation will automatically produce a good game that naturally falls out of it. I think it's more likely that your desire to create a good simulation will introduce elements that prevent it from being a good game.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm with yung.carl.jung. Simulation and game are orthogonal to each other. There is no reason to assume that creating a good simulation will automatically produce a good game that naturally falls out of it. I think it's more likely that your desire to create a good simulation will introduce elements that prevent it from being a good game.

Games like CK2 and Vicky 2 have massive learning curves but are still widely played. Total War (despite not actually being very good) managed to become one of the biggest strategy game franchises. Non-simulation games like Spore and Civilization attracted huge followings for even having a simulation theme. I think you're underestimating how much people enjoy simulation for its own sake.

 

[Leoreth]

None of these games are about simulation.

I'm also not really contending that people enjoy simulations, it's fine if you just want to mostly make a good simulation. I'm just saying that it's not the same as making a good game and that those goals are not complementary.

 

[Hygro]

I've always wanted a game that was a civilization simulator by simulating all the actors and the mechanisms by which they act.

 

[Mouthwash]

None of these games are about simulation.

CKII simulates feudal societies, Victoria II simulates nineteenth-century geopolitics, and Total War simulates pitched battles. The question of whether they simulate them properly isn't even relevant- people like them because they feel like they're in control of an actual feudal lord scheming his way to power and influence, or that they're actually commanding thousands of men on the battlefield.

I'm also not really contending that people enjoy simulations, it's fine if you just want to mostly make a good simulation.

You mean that they don't enjoy simulations? It's pretty clear that there are plenty of people who do.

I'm just saying that it's not the same as making a good game and that those goals are not complementary.

Why not? What if my enjoyment of a game is tied to my conception of what it's trying to simulate? Would anybody have played Victoria II if it were set in the Bronze Age, with all factions starting off on equal footing?

Anybody who spends time thinking about the nature of politics will enjoy my game, regardless of whether it might appeal to Starcraft or Legend of Zelda players.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You haven't really described what your game actually is. Or if you did I missed it.