Constraints; granularity; tactics
Author
The problem of passing rubber objects through rubber holes is an exercise of choosing an approximate matching size between the hole and the object and applying enough force. But if both the hole and the object are rigid, the problem becomes a lot more complicated, the stuff mathematicians work on for hours.
A million particles, each moving in a random way in random directions, colliding and interacting in chaos, are nothing more than a bit of inert gas engaged in pointless Brownian motion, which can be described with a few numbers like pressure, temperature and volume. In contrast, an extremely limited system such as a chess board, featuring but a few dozens of pieces, which can find themselves in but a few dozens states is most complex and thought provoking.
The point I''m trying to make is that freedom and chaos doesn''t equal complexity and interesting gameplay. Just because the number of possible states in a Starcraft games is staggering Starcraft isn''t nearly as complex as chess. Limiting the freedom, reducing the number of game states, constraining the possible evolutions of the game world _can_ create very good gameplay.
Don''t allow your player to build as many Nazguls as he can afford. 9 are more than enough. And a couple of wizards and about four hobbits. Don''t make starship design a matter of filling a satchel with goodies. Divide the ship in sections and only allow one class of weaponry in each section. Only use small numbers to describe anything in the game. Even the satchel problem is interesting if the granularity of the objects is large enough.
Totally off topic, but the chaos thing made me think of it.
"Life is a slippery thing to define, but it consists of two very different skills: the ability to replicate, and the ability to create order. Living things produce approximate copies of themselves: rabbits produce rabbits, dandelions make dandelions. But rabbits do more than that. They eat grass, transform it into rabbit flesh and somehow build bodies of order and complexity from the random chaos of the world."
-Genome: Life by Matt Ridley
[Sig deleted for size/space -- Kylotan]
[edited by - Kylotan on June 29, 2003 6:12:48 PM]
"Life is a slippery thing to define, but it consists of two very different skills: the ability to replicate, and the ability to create order. Living things produce approximate copies of themselves: rabbits produce rabbits, dandelions make dandelions. But rabbits do more than that. They eat grass, transform it into rabbit flesh and somehow build bodies of order and complexity from the random chaos of the world."
-Genome: Life by Matt Ridley
[Sig deleted for size/space -- Kylotan]
[edited by - Kylotan on June 29, 2003 6:12:48 PM]
Wow Diodor, that''s one of the most profound insight-posts I''ve read here in a long time. You are right! A limited, constrained system can be much more interesting than open systems. Constraints are obstacles, and obstacles are what we want to conquer in our gaming experience.
The way the knight in chess is completely different from the other pieces, and often considered useless, until in the most unexpected situation they turn out to be the only piece with a solution.
Much like the hobbits in Lord of the Rings.
The way the knight in chess is completely different from the other pieces, and often considered useless, until in the most unexpected situation they turn out to be the only piece with a solution.
Much like the hobbits in Lord of the Rings.
To some extent it''s a matter of simulation. Chess is abstracted enough that every move will matter, wheras in Starcraft you have many similar moves whose value varies only slightly. For the purpose of carefully formulating a strategy like those of Chess, where forming position is critical, abstraction in this regard is good.
However, having detail around can really matter in a video game. If Starcraft WERE more like Chess, we would first make the sides and maps mirror images because that''s obviously simpler and easier to learn. Then we could reduce all the units and buildings combined to maybe a total of 20 or 25, with a maximum of maybe 30 units. But guess what - you just destroyed strategy in the name of strategy! In an RTS game following typical design patterns, positioning units automatically takes a backseat to production options, so you actually WANT that complexity!
Certainly you could make a game more like Myth, which is perhaps a closer comparison to Chess, with a more limited range of units, fixed quantities of them, and an emphasis on position, but guess what, they''re two different games.
I would compare it to the design of a vehicle like a car, boat or aircraft. When you choose a given purpose for your vehicle(speed, capacity, comfort), you must balance it so that it functions best in that role. But you don''t try for everything - 18-wheeler trucks don''t enter auto races, and passenger jets don''t carry troops into combat.
However, having detail around can really matter in a video game. If Starcraft WERE more like Chess, we would first make the sides and maps mirror images because that''s obviously simpler and easier to learn. Then we could reduce all the units and buildings combined to maybe a total of 20 or 25, with a maximum of maybe 30 units. But guess what - you just destroyed strategy in the name of strategy! In an RTS game following typical design patterns, positioning units automatically takes a backseat to production options, so you actually WANT that complexity!
Certainly you could make a game more like Myth, which is perhaps a closer comparison to Chess, with a more limited range of units, fixed quantities of them, and an emphasis on position, but guess what, they''re two different games.
I would compare it to the design of a vehicle like a car, boat or aircraft. When you choose a given purpose for your vehicle(speed, capacity, comfort), you must balance it so that it functions best in that role. But you don''t try for everything - 18-wheeler trucks don''t enter auto races, and passenger jets don''t carry troops into combat.
Slightly off-topic:
Granularity and location size.
Sometimes it may be better to have fewer locations, that vary significantly than to have hundreds of locations that are almost the same. Ie. It is more killer than filler.
For instance consider the old text adventure games, the locations were very granular (?), you moved from one location to another by choosing where to go next. Ie. You type east and move eastwards from the cave to "outside the cave". (and in effect you teleport to the next location) .As opposed to games such as Daggerfall where you have to literally walk everywhere.
Granularity and location size.
Sometimes it may be better to have fewer locations, that vary significantly than to have hundreds of locations that are almost the same. Ie. It is more killer than filler.
For instance consider the old text adventure games, the locations were very granular (?), you moved from one location to another by choosing where to go next. Ie. You type east and move eastwards from the cave to "outside the cave". (and in effect you teleport to the next location) .As opposed to games such as Daggerfall where you have to literally walk everywhere.
This argument raises the issue of Strategy versus Tactics.
Strategey
1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
Tactic
1 : a device for accomplishing an end
2 : a method of employing forces in combat
These words are often used interchangably, which is where the confusion arises. A strategy in Starcraft, or for that matter any real-time whatever game is the abstract set of steps leading to victory, and the tactics are the actual actions made. However, with the chaos of starcraft, a strategy can have just a few tactics and be effective. For example, the early-rush, which seems to be greatly effective against players that don''t prepare for it, is just ONE tactics, who''se preparation is a bit complex, accurate timing, troop positioning, on so on.
I''m not saying that stracraft isn''t fun, but strategizing doesn''t work unless they''re really open ended strategies that take into account failure of a few tactics... and try to remember your strategy when a platoon of Dragoons just broke through the choke. In the end, you really have to be a dynamic player who can deal with each situation as it comes, which is more of a subconscious, procedural-memory strategy.
Turn-Based games tend to be unforgiving when it comes to misplacement, or wasted resources. The "granularity" demands exact tactics, meaning a much deeper strategy. Chess, if you just play to not lose any pieces, makes games that end in stalemate. The only way to win chess is to find a potential hole in the other''s strategy and drive them into it. No finding an unprotected hole or hiding the Ghost well, its more of making a list of moves that ends in victory. Try to make a list of moves that''ll end in victory with starcraft and you''ll find yourself laughed at by even the newbies.
Point is, don''t accuse turn-based games of being inferior, because the gameplay is subtley fine-tuned into a mind-game. And personally, it''s always fun screwing with someone''s head.
Strategey
1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
Tactic
1 : a device for accomplishing an end
2 : a method of employing forces in combat
These words are often used interchangably, which is where the confusion arises. A strategy in Starcraft, or for that matter any real-time whatever game is the abstract set of steps leading to victory, and the tactics are the actual actions made. However, with the chaos of starcraft, a strategy can have just a few tactics and be effective. For example, the early-rush, which seems to be greatly effective against players that don''t prepare for it, is just ONE tactics, who''se preparation is a bit complex, accurate timing, troop positioning, on so on.
I''m not saying that stracraft isn''t fun, but strategizing doesn''t work unless they''re really open ended strategies that take into account failure of a few tactics... and try to remember your strategy when a platoon of Dragoons just broke through the choke. In the end, you really have to be a dynamic player who can deal with each situation as it comes, which is more of a subconscious, procedural-memory strategy.
Turn-Based games tend to be unforgiving when it comes to misplacement, or wasted resources. The "granularity" demands exact tactics, meaning a much deeper strategy. Chess, if you just play to not lose any pieces, makes games that end in stalemate. The only way to win chess is to find a potential hole in the other''s strategy and drive them into it. No finding an unprotected hole or hiding the Ghost well, its more of making a list of moves that ends in victory. Try to make a list of moves that''ll end in victory with starcraft and you''ll find yourself laughed at by even the newbies.
Point is, don''t accuse turn-based games of being inferior, because the gameplay is subtley fine-tuned into a mind-game. And personally, it''s always fun screwing with someone''s head.
quote:Original post by RTFI disagree completely.
However, having detail around can really matter in a video game. If Starcraft WERE more like Chess, we would first make the sides and maps mirror images because that''s obviously simpler and easier to learn. Then we could reduce all the units and buildings combined to maybe a total of 20 or 25, with a maximum of maybe 30 units. But guess what - you just destroyed strategy in the name of strategy! In an RTS game following typical design patterns, positioning units automatically takes a backseat to production options, so you actually WANT that complexity!
I think the RTS genre has substituted quantity for quality; for games that are supposedly conflict-/combat-oriented, they are encumbered with a baffling amount of domesticity. The need for micromanagement also mires the genre is side-tasks that serve the purpose of lending credence to boxcover claims like "Over 100 hours of gameplay!" but don''t really add to the core game.
- Why do RTSes place you in obviously hostile/foreign territory with no base, no troops and no fortifications and require you to spend a significant amount of time procuring those? In all the wars that have occured throughout history, the forces are assembled at home and then transported - by foot, on horse, by plane, by ship - to the combat arena. For protracted campaigns such as city sieges, food, water and other resources are brought from home, and scavaging only occurs when resources run out.
In the real world, armies are always either located at the point of conflict - which tends to be reasonably close to civilization and a source of some supplies - or in transit towards one. I can make exceptions for Starcraft in this one instance because you''re in space, but other than that it falls prey to the contextual errors of the genre.
Furthermore, real-world armies are supported by countries who have reserve resources - at least at the commencement of engagements - that they can commit to the conflict as the need arises. ie, reinforcements.
Summary Eliminate resource-gathering as a prime component of gameplay. - Why do RTS games present you with virtually nothing in the way of intel? Even in the middle ages, a spy or scout did some recon to gain enough knowledge to plan an assault; in modern times satellite imagery, recon infantry and airplanes/drones and the like provide reasonably detailed information about the lay of the land and the locations of undisguised/unconcealed opposing fortifications and targets. This allows you to formulate a battle plan and deploy your forces as efficiently as you can, reducing the probability (with good planning) of wasteful consumption.
Fog of War is such a silly idea. Rather than fog of war, what RTS games need is a tactical map with a means of indicating the quality of information about an area. Quality decays with time, so if a recon unit takes two hours to return to base, the information there is two hours old (duh) and may be represented by a color change. If a camera is on location and connected to base via satellite (in a modern or futuristic setting), then information quality will remain perpetually high unless the camera is destroyed.
Summary Intelligence information! - Why do RTS games make you a disembodied entity? This can actually be realistic if you are the Grand Commander or Field Marshall, but in that case you''re not likely to be setting objectives and giving orders to individual units; you''ll work with aggregations and delegate specifics. Either do that or give the player a physical location and eliminate the free roaming camera.
In either case, delegation is necessary; you can''t physically be everywhere, and you can''t logically track every single action on the map. The "Your base is under attack" warning in Starcraft was such an irritation to me; why can''t I instruct a set number of units to patrol an area and only bother me if the situation is dire? Why can''t I instruct a unit to scout an area and then do A if condition C, B if condition D or E if condition F? I know Starcraft isn''t the state-of-the-art in RTSes anymore, but it is the classic example and most referred-to title.
Summary Delegation!
quote:
Those are just three of my personal gripes, but consider that if you effect them you "simplify" the game without eliminating gameplay. If anything, you increase gameplay and make it an even better RTS - provided they are properly implemented.
Those are valid complaints; but what I''m insisting, and it took me more than a few tries to say this right, is that we have a choice of paths to go down, a very broad potential variety of RTS games.
When we simplify, we reduce our choices until we are left with one. The important thing is to recognize that we have alternatives that can each have strengths and weaknesses and be popular in their own right; this is why we have such a wide variety of games in any form - even if you were to look at "two-player board games involving capture," you have a wide choice between games such as Nine Men''s Morris(Six Men''s Morris, Three Men''s Morris), Checkers(and variants), Chess(and variants), Fox and Geese(and variants)...
But we would never say that one of these games is the perfect one. In the same way, we should look ahead and know that we''ll end up with a similar level of variety in RTS games, and know that none of our changes is a guarenteed improvement, only a likely one and one of many.
Author
quote:
Original post by MadKeithV
Wow Diodor, that''s one of the most profound insight-posts I''ve read here in a long time. You are right! A limited, constrained system can be much more interesting than open systems. Constraints are obstacles, and obstacles are what we want to conquer in our gaming experience.
The way the knight in chess is completely different from the other pieces, and often considered useless, until in the most unexpected situation they turn out to be the only piece with a solution.
Much like the hobbits in Lord of the Rings.
Limiting the number of choices at each moment doesn''t hurt the overall complexity of the game - which, in the long run, is still huge even for the most constrained of games (like chess) - but it inherently allows for planning. Each choice gains meaning as a step in a possible long-term direction.
quote:
Original post by Ketchaval
Slightly off-topic:
Granularity and location size.
Sometimes it may be better to have fewer locations, that vary significantly than to have hundreds of locations that are almost the same. I.e. It is more killer than filler.
For instance consider the old text adventure games, the locations were very granular (?), you moved from one location to another by choosing where to go next. I.e. You type east and move eastwards from the cave to "outside the cave". (and in effect you teleport to the next location) .As opposed to games such as Daggerfall where you have to literally walk everywhere.
I agree, and it''s not off-topic at all. Granularity doesn''t need to limit itself to space - a granularity of time can work just as well. VGA Planets for instance is a turn based game based on a real-time engine. Players give orders for a period of time - which is then simulated - then the players receive the results of the simulation and can give orders again.
Increasing granularity is the easiest tool to limit the number of choices, making each choice a lot more important.
quote:
Original post by Inmate2993
I''m not saying that stracraft isn''t fun, but strategizing doesn''t work unless they''re really open ended strategies that take into account failure of a few tactics... and try to remember your strategy when a platoon of Dragoons just broke through the choke. In the end, you really have to be a dynamic player who can deal with each situation as it comes, which is more of a subconscious, procedural-memory strategy.
The number of choices at each moment in Starcraft is so large and the game situations changes so fast that one can only make short term plans - pushing Starcraft to the reactive side of gaming.
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Summary Eliminate resource-gathering as a prime component of gameplay.
What I dislike about the resource-gathering gameplay is that it is such a single-player form of gameplay. Multiplayer Starcraft starts out as multiplayer as playing Pinball in turns to get the highest score. It is a competition, but it has no interaction at all, yet it determines to a large extent the outcome of the rest of the game.
quote:
Summary Intelligence information!
It is very interesting how in Diplomacy, a board game where all the game information is public (map layout, army locations), intelligence is paramount. Even if the game information is completely free, knowing what each player plans for the future is vital for success. Information and disinformation are key to winning Diplomacy - and each game move demands a careful analysis in the light of how the others will interpret it.
quote:
Summary Delegation!
I think increasing granularity can be a supplement of delegation. In Panzer General you do command individual units, but each unit is division size.
Diodor(1st post), I see what you''re talking about but this is sort of a non-issue, at least with the examples you started out with. I think this goes back to top-down versus bottom-up. There are nearly infinite *positions* in Starcraft, but fewer true *states* than chess. It''s like the second word in your post, granularity, do you start your description at the molecule of silicon dioxide, the grain of sand, or the beach? Even in chess, if we were to count the positions a piece is in between moves, there are infinite combinations, but we are already so familiar with its mechanics that we know not to consider them.
So, back on topic and going with the rubber holes, is it better to guide the player to the states that work, let them discover which states work, or disallow extraneous states from existing(rigid holes and between the squares)?
So, back on topic and going with the rubber holes, is it better to guide the player to the states that work, let them discover which states work, or disallow extraneous states from existing(rigid holes and between the squares)?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
