The thing about Spore though is that a creature's appearance does affect its abilities, which is then seen by its animation. For example, if you put a mouth on a tail (like in the early footage we saw of the game), the game will consider that to be used as a possible weapon when you try to attack someone. Multiple legs might allow you to run faster and steadily, while a few legs might have you run at slower speeds or make you easily trip over ground obstacles. 1 hopping leg would then mean your traversing speed is quite low, and that your traversing capabilities can be easily disabled. A body with a huge size would result in less agility or more force needed to get it moving, but it is much more durable. A body with less size then, is very agile, for you are able to make 180-degree turns much faster, but you might be more affected by damage. Etc.

Now for instance, if you put a mouth on your tail, and blow that up to a huge size, you could only logically conclude that a bigger mouth would do more damage than a smaller mouth, but be less agile. So form(appearance) and function are definitely related together especially if a game is made to have them relate together like in Spore.

Okay, Thanks for the feedback.

This is all very interesting, so why don't we expand on it a little, try to get a diamond out of this rough.

I would like to carry the idea on of the aforementioned appearance editor.

Of course, making it totally separate and offline is a key thing, as an RTS environment wouldn't be suited to that much fiddling whilst a war is going on.

I would think that having the pre-defined arch-types as types in the appearance editor, this would mean simply that the player could open up the army editor, say I’m going to create a foot soldier, and the editor would come up with all the parts needed for the foot soldier or a tank to work, and the player could choose from a pretty little list of parts, but all they are really doing is selecting what the unit looks like. Say a foot soldier (basic unit) needs a weapon, an ammo pouch, a radio, etc. and the rest of the slots could be used for armor, medical pack, or other special items. This would also work for the buildings; you need to have a main base, a resource centre, a war factory, etc. Each would have it's own check list for what it needs to work, for example, a resource centre needs "A garage door (allows the building of a resource collector), A resource collection point, a storage device, and anything else would just be extra's like a flag, a fence, a window, etc.

Comment + Debate.

Instead of just having one or the other, why not include both? The later expansion packs of Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War (specifically Dark Crusade) you get to paint and decorate your units as previously, while also installing weapons and gear on your heroes.

So what I am saying is that you can go with what Spore did, where you can paint/decorate your units (aesthetics) as well as put body parts on them that gives them attributes (function).

You don't need to debate this, just include both so that both types of players can have their fun.

Quote:Original post by Tangireon
[...]You don't need to debate this, just include both so that both types of players can have their fun.

If you include both, it makes more sense to do so separately, IMO. In other words, adding a gun to a unit only adds animations and a 'muzzle attach point', which you can then assign various types of attacks and abilities to. Two units could use have the same weapon with completely different attacks, or one unit could have a single weapon and three different attack modes, or the gun could just be part of the appearance and the unit could only have melee attacks (perhaps using the rifle as a club, etc). One guy's gun could be a rifle / grenade launcher combo, while another gun with the same appearance is a net-launcher, and a third launches gas grenades, and a fourth shoots APFSDS, etc.

In fact, I'd suggest using something similar to the point-buy systems in the GURPS or Hero role-playing games to allow significant customization of abilities.

Now then,

I was wondering how practical, well, I was wondering how doable this would be, in terms of technology, time, work.

I know it was only an idea and I will keep it that way until a million dollar studio comes knocking at my inbox but I just like to know how practical my ideas are.

How hard would it be? Let’s say just for the appearance editor with a few bits that add bonuses like the radio.

Visuals and dynamics I would imagine being the hardest.

Cheers.

Quote:Original post by Extrarius

Quote:Original post by Tangireon
[...]You don't need to debate this, just include both so that both types of players can have their fun.

If you include both, it makes more sense to do so separately, IMO.

I don't really agree; I'm with Eternal in thinking that separating function from form in this kind of way would be detrimental to gameplay. Players would exploit it like crazy, making powerful units look small and inoffensive (choosing the platform with the smallest collision box no doubt) and weak cannon fodder units big and imposing, making them bigger and more appealing targets. Or perhaps they would make some or all of their units look completely identical, so the enemy has no idea what kind of unit he's dealing with.

In effect, you'd create a whole metagame about designing units with the sole purpose of confusing your opponents; and while to some extent that might be acceptable, and even desirable, without any constraints it will become unenjoyable for the players. At least if form and function are related, you have a tradeoff; you can still play the unit design metagame, but you can only make different units similar up to a point, and you limit the extremes to which it can be taken.