).
Secondly, the same game cannot reasonably contain that many different "levels of detail" operating simultaneously. To the general (or whatever), the scale needs to be *huge*, and because of that, the time-factor of the game needs to be incredibly sped up for the game to be playable. While, at the other extreme, to the grunt, every fraction of a second counts. So if you speed up the time-factor to make the general''s "game" playable, it becomes impossible to be a "grunt", and vice versa.
And, finally, to get to the actual *point* of this post, the "game" played by the general is totally different from the "game" played by the grunt. They are logically 2 different games, with only superficial similarities. As such, they should each be their own game.
Whether or not you consider a game as "art" or not, is irrelevent, and C.S. Lewis''s assertion (horribly paraphrased) that "anything in a work of art that does not add to that work of art, detracts from it" still applies. If a feature doesn''t "belong" in the game, adding it (or keeping it in there) does not make the game better. Instead, it makes it worse.
In our example, we were either trying to patch a tactical game onto a strategic one, or vice versa.
Choose what kind of game you''re going to create, and then create that game. Just because something "would be cool" doesn''t mean it has any place in the game, and implementing it only detracts from the time you have to do the *real* game. This where the game design becomes a "discipline". You have to know what''s right for your game, and what''s not, resisting the "really cool" temptations.
Of course,this doesn''t mean that elements of different "genres" cannot be successfully mixed. They can, but only when it makes sense in the context of the game.
DavidRMSamu Games
