gaming question

[thedarkproject]

And lo, I've managed to stop being miserable long enough to ask a question, albeit one that will only concern those of you who play computer games of some sort. The rest of you, keep on scrolling...

I'm designing a simple game, which will probably be web-based, and focus around strategy. It'll be in the vein of Civilization, Transport Tycoon, Championship Manager, Theme Park, Sim City, that sort of thing*. I'm still in the brainstorming phase of noting down a thousand potential features before sifting through to find out which ones are good, but I think I have to make one particular choice before continuing too far.

And that choice is... do I make the game fixed length like the first two examples above, where there is a fixed ending point no matter how well you do? There will be a sense of urgency, even if it's long-term, as you're always battling against the clock, or perhaps against an opponent that increases in power until it defeats you. But eventually the game ends and you lose everything you built up, which is not a fun prospect for those who like indefinite play.

Or do I make it ongoing so that you can keep improving, like the latter three examples, even though this may take away any sort of ultimate goal? This lets people stay with their characters that they grow fond of, but gradually increases the difference between the older and the newer players, perhaps discouraging the new ones when they see that they may never catch up with the top players. It also means there will surely come a point where a player has seen everything and leaves through boredom rather than through winning, and maybe that is not good.

I can also envisage some sort of middle ground, sort of inspired by Championship Manager or any other sports game, where a given campaign may come to an end and various scores and resources are reset to zero, but other ones persist to the next campaign, at least in part. Theme Park also had this on a less chronologically fixed basis, where you could sell off your old park and buy a new one which posed a different challenge. But this sort of model is probably harder to balance than either of the two purer alternatives above, as I'd have to decide what can be carried forward and what cannot, risking alienating fans of both styles of gameplay if the choices are poor.

What do you prefer, and why? Opinions please!


(* Actually it'll be more along the lines of Majesty, Carnage Blender, and Quest PBM, but most if not all of you won't have any idea what they're like...)

Comments

[fiendil.livejournal.com]

Some of the Sim City games went for a middle ground: you could go for a mission of building a certain size of city by a given date (or other such goals, like having half a dozen monsters hit a pre built city that you've got to restore to former glory by a set date...), or just build indefinitely. That's not a bad model.

[thedarkproject]

The problem is that I have to decide which one the game is going to be ultimately aimed at, because it will affect various important mechanics. For example, if you can build indefinitely, that means I have to keep increasing the challenges indefinitely, and keep increasing the resources available to you indefinitely. It also means your scores are not easily comparable with others since people who've played for longer will have almost unassailable scores.

[soldatengrab.livejournal.com]

can you not do both? As in civ etc, set the time of game, and have a sandbox mode, or unlimited turns for those who wish to play eternal.

[thedarkproject]

Not really, because ultimately I have to come up with a variety of resources which offer different things over the expected lifespan of the game. Civ is clearly balanced for the 4000AD - 2050AD range, as that's where it gives you new tech and units. You can play beyond that if you want, but it counts for little and there's typically nothing left to discover.

[makingthematrix.livejournal.com]

I would say that it's not a flaw but an advantage. You keep balance and scores till a fixed point and then you say "that's it - you can play as long as you want, but this is your final score". I like this approach and as far as I know, many people like it as well.
I remember one very interesting game of Call to Power where I played the second biggest civilization on the planet (the so-called Evil Empire as I played communist and very militaristic). My opponent was better than me in the scored part of the game but then I managed to beat him around 2200AD :)

[theladyskye.livejournal.com]

I like having the option of retaining the characters. Perhaps you could have a dual option where there is a free-form play option, and there is a mission-oriented setting?

[thedarkproject]

Unfortunately it would just be like having to write two games in one, because getting the gameplay right in both cases would be significantly different in some ways. It may eventually be possible to provide one game mode after having done the other, but I can't immediately do both at the same time as they will require different sets of resources.

[theladyskye.livejournal.com]

Ah okay. I knew some of the Sims games had that functionality, but alas, I know NADA about programming. Good luck! :)

[tinker-goth.livejournal.com]

i would personally prefer the indefinite ongoing idea. i am a wow player and i like the fact you can carry on for ages, they keep extending it and you can keep the character you make and in a way get to know.

[thedarkproject]

Thank you - finally, someone who actually made a choice rather than just saying they wanted both. :P

[josephbaxter.livejournal.com]

You should have made a poll ;)

... I find a get bored of open ended games, I dont see the point in playing a game for playing the games sake... I like a nice reward at the end.. aka a shiney divx end sequence :)

[bloggerofdeath.livejournal.com]

even there, there is a limit though and you have to buy extensions to get past l60 and l70 when the Lich King comes out and your character eventually stabilises once you've got the epic weapons and stuff.

[lost-in-moose.livejournal.com]

I get the feeling that this is something that comes out of the game you're making isn't it?

Ok sorry no question, opinions. I'd like the indefinite case. Whereby you can keep going and stop when you like. The trouble with games like civ' etc is that eventually you reach the defined limit in other ways. The tech tree runs out. The resources are depleted (maybe if politicians played games they'd understand the environment better...). Or whatever.

The one game that had me hooked for years I think was Frontier (Elite 2) as there was always more planets to visit than you ever could. Though again it had limitation in terms of tech, ships, mission type etc etc.

Yes, indefinite games are the ones I'd go for if I could write them :)

[thedarkproject]

The design isn't dictated by the game in this case. Pac-Man would have worked whether you could repeat the game after the last board or not, for example. There are no defined goals as of yet, only gameplay.

One mark against the indefinite case is that I intend this to be a loosely multiplayer game. Players won't directly interact, but their progress will be compared, and if I allow them to go on forever, then newer players may feel like they'll always be behind.

I can always add more stats onto the resources you acquire, but I think there's it becomes distinctly less impressive to get a level 50 gun after your level 45 gun, rather than trading in your beam laser for a military laser. I think qualitative differences carry more interest than quantitative ones - but you can't easily program the latter.

I can add more things later on though, as it'll be an online game. But it shouldn't just be a case of laying out more and more content at the top end as that's inefficient for me and discouraging for newbies.

[lost-in-moose.livejournal.com]

OOh, how about giving everyone a rating derived from the amount of time they've played verses their 'level', if you're having a neatly defined level concept of course.

For example, people may be newbies but they've also not played for very long. Whereas people may not be the best but they've risen quickly and with skill. Most importantly though, you might be the best player in the world, but its taken you the longest to get there ;)

Obviously thats a rather simplistic idea but that's kind of its strength as well. You just list the two components; 'level' and 'time' then their derivative 'score' based on them.

The other option is to have the game do a scenario reset. It won't reset the players but they might need to gather equipment again and since so much of an RPG is not only the players abilities etc but also the loot that they've bought or acquired it might be a good way of levelling the field for a time.

[thedarkproject]

Unfortunately the rate of progress won't be linear, so there's no meaningful way of relating time to score like that.

As with Civilization, there will be practical limits on how far you can expand, so improvement will start to level off after a point. The important thing really is whether I then continue to increase the external challenge so that the player is playing for survival, or just maintain the level so that they're racking up hours. The first feels like it would ultimately be more satisfying.

It may not be a big deal; I can just develop the general gameplay and see how it feels as you approach the end game. I just want to avoid having to remove stuff later if it doesn't work, that's all.

[bloggerofdeath.livejournal.com]

how about asymptotic increase to some limit, or some various logarithmic curves? or as certain aspects of the game increase, certain aspects inevitably become weaker - for example in Civilization the bigger your empire got, the harder it was to control the outer reaches making certain areas more vulnerable to smaller, more compact forces?

[thedarkproject]

That just reshapes the problem rather than altering it though. Once you hit or approach that limit, you're effectively achieving nothing, so should the game allow you to continue on achieving nothing, or should there be a point where it stops and it measures just how well you achieved it? If it lets you continue, then there needs to be something new to hold the interest (which is likely to be a problem with my system). And if it doesn't let you continue, how can it end satisfactorily?