Post by Druebey on Jan 15, 2015 5:29:41 GMT -5
well to the bloggist, you are getting your wish, look at paradox development studio... Those are the games you are looking for, EU4, HOI4, etc. All simplified messes that have NO sense behind actions and reactions. I been watching the developer diaries for HOI4 and am disgusted by the appearent change of course from HOI3. Balance HOI3 and make the game play better, not redo engine... make same mistakes.
Back on topic, Most dont know combined arms tactics or why it happens. There are alot of developers that take NO time in researching anything but a single account or single history book. If remember right sid mier when he made colonization went to experts, read 30 some books, etc to model that game. Yes it is complex and alot of micromanagement but honestly thats what colonial times were.
Now with that said, 4x gaming is rather interesting as it is a niche market. not many people like games that make you think of tactical and strategic objectives. That is why 4x gaming is catered to the micromanagement crowd. There once was a study, cant remember where but anyhow, that stated that those that play 4x games have a higher IQ then the rest of the population. Why is that? Because 4x games with the micromanagement or choices of automization make the brain work similar to brain games... They make the frontal lobe exercise itself and along with immersion allow the player to completely exercise their brain.
Now with all that said, Would you rather have issues later in life due to an unexercised brain or would you like to have a fully functional brain? They are testing at this moment the concept for Brain Injury Victims to play true 4x games in order to rehabilitate themselves... I know this because I did a survey to be apart of this test. Now with that said, if it can help people with brain injuries, why cant the "common" person apperciate the exercise?
The brain needs exercise just like the body... So are you telling me that youd rather be obese and essentially have your brain capable of minial tasks than have a fit body and brain capable of learning astrophysics at the age of 55? which honestly is the best choice? I am just stating that this blog is in the face of all science and common sense. I mean really have you researched yourself the actual combined arms tactic theories and practical uses? The use of fighter jets, bombers, altillary, infantry, ships, boats, etc? I will tell you that their are many many theories and practical uses. what about the multiple aspects of buracuracy and how it actually works?
Explain to me, how the president can state, "build an aircraft carrier" but it takes around 5-10 years for it to be produced when in 1940s it took around 10 months. What is the difference? With better technology we should be able to have a better way of making them than 70 years ago right? how about the creation of a naval base? took all of 5 mos in the 40s now it takes 3 years. why the difference? same process...
so really games that are futuristic are unrealistic arent they? game designers have to take some things into consideration and ignore others. While others that take the time to take it all into consideration are rushed so that they ignore diaplomacy as is talked about and the like.
With that said, would you rush a developer that is doing the "whys" instead of the whats? how long do you think it would take to make such a game? a few years or months? many expect games after being released as concepts that they are released in months. Without regard for the time it takes to make a engine that has the why and the whats combined and a deepened diplomacy model. All people want is games with decent or better graphics but few care about gameplay as a whole. Sid mier stated make a simple game first then complicate it, as was his design theory, while developers now are make the graphics pleasing then make gameplay mechanics. Which is more pleasing? I honestly, myself, would go for a gameplay mechanic first theory then graphics and the like.
What about you all? what would you all chose? Would you rather a developer worry about the "why" concepts and the "what" together and code them correctly together, or would you just want a developer to concentrate on one or the other? The Players are ultimately the deciding factor in all games and Players are stating they want the "what" not the why how or who parts. That bothers me, as any socialogist will state that the games, activities, etc of a culture define that culture. So what does that really state about our culture as a whole? That we dont care about the "what, who, why, how, when" aspects?
I will state I am working on games that do the "what,who,why, how, when" aspects as much as the engine will allow... And if the first engine cant take it all, I will always upgrade it to do so in patches to the games. With that said, My design concepts are based off the ideal that you not only have to have the " what and why, but the how and who" aspects as well. How long do you expect that process to make an engine and a single game with that idea to make?
I will tell you I released my first concept page on greenlight in 2012. Since then its been a rough and bumpy road. I though am optimistic in the success of the games due to the new approach I am taking.
How many other developers are taking chances like what I am? How many developers are actively trying to change the "landscape" of programing games? How many developers release their concepts when they are just basic ideas of what they are doing and then expect people to understand it will take time?
Back on topic, Most dont know combined arms tactics or why it happens. There are alot of developers that take NO time in researching anything but a single account or single history book. If remember right sid mier when he made colonization went to experts, read 30 some books, etc to model that game. Yes it is complex and alot of micromanagement but honestly thats what colonial times were.
Now with that said, 4x gaming is rather interesting as it is a niche market. not many people like games that make you think of tactical and strategic objectives. That is why 4x gaming is catered to the micromanagement crowd. There once was a study, cant remember where but anyhow, that stated that those that play 4x games have a higher IQ then the rest of the population. Why is that? Because 4x games with the micromanagement or choices of automization make the brain work similar to brain games... They make the frontal lobe exercise itself and along with immersion allow the player to completely exercise their brain.
Now with all that said, Would you rather have issues later in life due to an unexercised brain or would you like to have a fully functional brain? They are testing at this moment the concept for Brain Injury Victims to play true 4x games in order to rehabilitate themselves... I know this because I did a survey to be apart of this test. Now with that said, if it can help people with brain injuries, why cant the "common" person apperciate the exercise?
The brain needs exercise just like the body... So are you telling me that youd rather be obese and essentially have your brain capable of minial tasks than have a fit body and brain capable of learning astrophysics at the age of 55? which honestly is the best choice? I am just stating that this blog is in the face of all science and common sense. I mean really have you researched yourself the actual combined arms tactic theories and practical uses? The use of fighter jets, bombers, altillary, infantry, ships, boats, etc? I will tell you that their are many many theories and practical uses. what about the multiple aspects of buracuracy and how it actually works?
Explain to me, how the president can state, "build an aircraft carrier" but it takes around 5-10 years for it to be produced when in 1940s it took around 10 months. What is the difference? With better technology we should be able to have a better way of making them than 70 years ago right? how about the creation of a naval base? took all of 5 mos in the 40s now it takes 3 years. why the difference? same process...
so really games that are futuristic are unrealistic arent they? game designers have to take some things into consideration and ignore others. While others that take the time to take it all into consideration are rushed so that they ignore diaplomacy as is talked about and the like.
With that said, would you rush a developer that is doing the "whys" instead of the whats? how long do you think it would take to make such a game? a few years or months? many expect games after being released as concepts that they are released in months. Without regard for the time it takes to make a engine that has the why and the whats combined and a deepened diplomacy model. All people want is games with decent or better graphics but few care about gameplay as a whole. Sid mier stated make a simple game first then complicate it, as was his design theory, while developers now are make the graphics pleasing then make gameplay mechanics. Which is more pleasing? I honestly, myself, would go for a gameplay mechanic first theory then graphics and the like.
What about you all? what would you all chose? Would you rather a developer worry about the "why" concepts and the "what" together and code them correctly together, or would you just want a developer to concentrate on one or the other? The Players are ultimately the deciding factor in all games and Players are stating they want the "what" not the why how or who parts. That bothers me, as any socialogist will state that the games, activities, etc of a culture define that culture. So what does that really state about our culture as a whole? That we dont care about the "what, who, why, how, when" aspects?
I will state I am working on games that do the "what,who,why, how, when" aspects as much as the engine will allow... And if the first engine cant take it all, I will always upgrade it to do so in patches to the games. With that said, My design concepts are based off the ideal that you not only have to have the " what and why, but the how and who" aspects as well. How long do you expect that process to make an engine and a single game with that idea to make?
I will tell you I released my first concept page on greenlight in 2012. Since then its been a rough and bumpy road. I though am optimistic in the success of the games due to the new approach I am taking.
How many other developers are taking chances like what I am? How many developers are actively trying to change the "landscape" of programing games? How many developers release their concepts when they are just basic ideas of what they are doing and then expect people to understand it will take time?