<!--quoteo(post=1816481:date=Dec 16 2010, 06:42 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Dec 16 2010, 06:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're an idiot if you don't understand popularity of SC1 or SC2.
You understand why strategy games are popular or perhaps even "good", right? Right? I mean, I never thought of you as an idiot and this is the official NS2 forum. Perhaps you have just never thought about this. Rewards for mental effort? Ordering armies in war games? Watching sci-fi effects? Is any of this ringing a bell?
Let me talk about SC1 specifically. SC1 was popular in 1998 because it had great graphics, FREE multiplayer, and balanced truly asymmetric races brought over numerous patches. To put it modestly, SC1 was new and good. From 2000 onward, SC1 was recognized as the best computer strategy game of all time. Having mother ###### birthed esports in south korea, it also had an esports scene to amuse and inspire novices as they dreamed big.
However, SC1 was made in 1998. It had a hostile interface, to say the least. Warcraft 3 came out, and people slowly stopped caring about SC1.
SC2 was made to be an esport. Balanced as the first priority. Impossible to fully master as a close second priority. Large strategic complexity. Great graphics naturally. True to the original, but innovative. Right now, SC2 has the largest esports scene on the entire planet. SC1 career gamers are swiching over as quickly as their contracts run out and are never looking back. SC1 hobbyist gamers are doing the same. SC2's graphics are comparable to Crysis (that game websites use as a benchmarking tool for graphics cards).
SC2 has fully and completed satisfied its design objectives of being better than SC1 in all ways and a platform for global esports expansion. SC2 is slated to be one of the most important games of the next decade or even ever, if it brings esports to the mainstream in western civilization. SC2 is perhaps the best example of game design we have.
You may not agree with what the game design of SC2 accomplished, but you cannot ever say it is a bad example of game design.
You sir, are wrong. *Adjusts monocle*.
Yes, I am mocking myself. But I do it for the lulz, because I am mayhaps too serious. Serious business indeed. I just care about video games' ascension into mainstream society, so hearing ignorance pains my fragile disposition. Some would say I have a soft spot for video games in my heart. I would say I have a sweet tooth, grown in proportion to that of a saber tooth tiger, ready to strike at the core of all those who oppose me. Beware.
Yes, that was a Diablo 2 Necro quote ^^.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Competition is bleh, don't see the point, don't enjoy it. I cannot see the appeal.
I understand why <i>I</i> like RTS games, because I play all of the ones I listed (except WIC, I play ground control 2 which is basically the same thing).
I do not see the appeal of SC, it isn't very strategic, nor were most RTS games in days of yore. I used to play red alert 2 but I can't stand it now, because I have played far better strategy games, and having done that I cannot go back to living in the dark ages. Surprisingly however age of empires 2 is still relatively playable, not as good as AOE3, but still OK. AOE3 uses more modern ideas, you win by organising your army well, not by spamming 30 million actions or building the right kind of unit, although good units do help.
Total war is probably the pinnacle of RTS games, it is almost entirely about strategy and tactics, has really very little to do with what units you build, you're always best off building a balanced army with a few different units in and using it well, you can't win by rushing or spamming actions or having the right units. You have to win by thought.#
SC1 is popular because it was made in the dark ages and people didn't know any better, SC2 is popular because a ridiculously high proportion of people got hooked on the terrible dark age RTS gameplay and they all went out and bought SC1 in a shiny box when it got released. That's what blizzard does, it makes a game and if it does well, it milks the crap out of it by releasing more of the same with a shinier box. And it make a damn fortune off it for the same reason EA makes all its money off of FIFA 20XX and madden NFL 20XX. You don't need to change anything, you just release the same game, say it's new, and your massive existing fanbase will buy it and say it's wonderful.
However as UWE doesn't have much of an existing fanbase, that is not a good design approach for NS2. They need to be innovative, use all the modern advances that have been made in design, and appeal to a wider audience.
No offense TrC, but you are absolutely full of hot air.
A lot of people on here, including myself state the same thing over and over.
# NS2 is great, we don't want to simplify it but:
# Interface / game play / learning curve needs a lot of work - possible answers A. B. C.
Yet the reaction on here is "don't make it easier!", "shout stuff!", "make condescending remarks!".
You stick up for Starcraft, yet condemn that escapists video link which pretty much sums up SC2.
It is easy to sit on here and say "It's fine, don't change it!". But haven't you been playing NS1 for years, and now NS2... of course you understand it.
If you are all about game play, how about all the comments on here in relation to FPS/server issues.
"I'm not going to bother, i'll come back when it is playable".
In it's most simplistic form, these issues are stopping you, the players from playing the game. In the same way that this will:
"I can't work out how to command"
"I can't find my team mates, this is frustrating I can't be bothered"
"I can't be arsed to play a tutorial, I want to jump straight in and have fun. I keep dying, I don't understand i'm off..."
I saw a video once of a reason for a products failure. It showed a women trying to get the contents out of a medicine bottle, but whilst simple, she still failed to understand it. So she blamed herself for it and decided not to buy it again. Or advise others to buy it.
The company producing it couldn't explain the horrible sales, and it took GOOD design practices to understand why. Such as talking to users, and observing how they use the product.
The same views I hear on these forums all the time are the same.
"They probably shouldn't be playing it!"... complete ignorance. The same sort of people say "all those CS kiddies came over and ruined it". What do these comments actually mean, do they have basis?
No one is expecting the game to be playable in 5 minutes, but you should understand what you should be doing during that 5 minutes learning as you go. Otherwise the game architecture has failed.
At the moment, you join the game and there is no introduction, no understanding.
Good design works around people, it should not expect people to work around design.
And no, you can't solve every issue, and there is not always an answer. But there is definitely room for improvement as far as NS1/NS2 is concerned.
i actually think that the mappers have done a great job of making every hallway distinct. i don't know what game you're playing but they don't seem to be just "generic corridors" to me (and to be honest, real buildings have a lot of generic corridors).
<!--quoteo(post=1816487:date=Dec 16 2010, 07:13 PM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Dec 16 2010, 07:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816487"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i actually think that the mappers have done a great job of making every hallway distinct. i don't know what game you're playing but they don't seem to be just "generic corridors" to me (and to be honest, real buildings have a lot of generic corridors).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tram's central tramway can be a bit hard to see where you are, and there are bits of the connecting corridors which can be hard to tell apart, but generally yes each room is somewhat unique and corridors try to look distinct from each other.
<!--quoteo(post=1816483:date=Dec 16 2010, 02:50 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Dec 16 2010, 02:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816483"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Competition is bleh, don't see the point, don't enjoy it. I cannot see the appeal.
I understand why <i>I</i> like RTS games, because I play all of the ones I listed (except WIC, I play ground control 2 which is basically the same thing).
I do not see the appeal of SC, it isn't very strategic, nor were most RTS games in days of yore. I used to play red alert 2 but I can't stand it now, because I have played far better strategy games, and having done that I cannot go back to living in the dark ages. Surprisingly however age of empires 2 is still relatively playable, not as good as AOE3, but still OK. AOE3 uses more modern ideas, you win by organising your army well, not by spamming 30 million actions or building the right kind of unit, although good units do help.
Total war is probably the pinnacle of RTS games, it is almost entirely about strategy and tactics, has really very little to do with what units you build, you're always best off building a balanced army with a few different units in and using it well, you can't win by rushing or spamming actions or having the right units. You have to win by thought.#
SC1 is popular because it was made in the dark ages and people didn't know any better, SC2 is popular because a ridiculously high proportion of people got hooked on the terrible dark age RTS gameplay and they all went out and bought SC1 in a shiny box when it got released. That's what blizzard does, it makes a game and if it does well, it milks the crap out of it by releasing more of the same with a shinier box. And it make a damn fortune off it for the same reason EA makes all its money off of FIFA 20XX and madden NFL 20XX. You don't need to change anything, you just release the same game, say it's new, and your massive existing fanbase will buy it and say it's wonderful.
However as UWE doesn't have much of an existing fanbase, that is not a good design approach for NS2. They need to be innovative, use all the modern advances that have been made in design, and appeal to a wider audience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> SC1 and SC2 require thought. And SC1 has crazy requirements for controlling armies.... Crazy requirements. A single mistake, lasting a second, as 24 units die to AOE damage, can lose a game. Opportunities for single mistakes happen every time armies engage. It's not like NS1 with a distress beacon to save the day. Using unit abilities, orienting armies correctly while pushing, composing a versatile army. But that's SC1. SC2 is not as crazy. SC2 is more about managing economy and production than ordering armies.
I readily admit SC2's popularity is at least half attributed to the "2" in its name and that its developer is called "Blizzard-Activision". But it's still good. It's still balanced (getting there with some patches), difficult to master, has free internet multiplayer, a huge global community, the largest esports scene in the world to gaze upon from afar, amazing graphics, tactical real-time gameplay, an amazing single player campaign, and unbeatable replayability with its multiplayer.
SC2 is a good game, and a great game. I sound like a commerical, mostly because SC2 is actually that good.
Who cares about SC1 and 2... The only important thing on this thread is that the creator of it looks like the same guy that always create a new account just to talk trash.
The killcam is a great idea but I imagine hard to implement. I am guessing based on on the games i have played with a bad 3rd-person camera. I would rather see it later.
The tutorial stuff ... again alot of work to do. I would start with something simple something I see in RPGs. A browser of sort for the structures and creatures.
All that needs to be there is ... a) The model or screenshot with consistent background. b) A blurb of text.
This will fill in the gaps of these structures and creatures and their importance/usefulness/weakness.
Structures would be first on my list, creatures are a little more obvious.
The Hive The aliens build hives to expand and build up their tech tree. While on the marines killing the hive will set them back. While on the aliens USING a hive makes you the alien commander and giving you an RTS view for building structures.
Armory Once built the armory provides marines with ammo and health. As the commander researches different weapons they will become available in the armory and the marines can buy them. While on marines just touching this structure should refill your ammo and health. While on aliens destroying this structure will prevent the marines from purchasing weapons and refilling their health and ammo.
As always I think game features are a higher priority at this point. But I am just thinking out loud.
<!--quoteo(post=1816498:date=Dec 16 2010, 08:35 PM:name=PaiSand)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PaiSand @ Dec 16 2010, 08:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816498"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Who cares about SC1 and 2... The only important thing on this thread is that the creator of it looks like the same guy that always create a new account just to talk trash.
<b>Posts: 1 Joined: Yesterday, 09:28 PM</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But his post was <u>constructive</u>, so who cares who it is behind the account?
I'm just glad that I and a small bunch of people out there aren't the only guys that think it's overly complex.
I remember reading a post from Flayra saying he was going to simplify NS2 as even he found it difficult to play once it got going and how he could understand why new players found it complex and hard to get in to.
So what has happened since then? SC2 got released and they've gone in to over drive with over complicating things, inert abilities on chambers, active abilities, upgrades on abilities at certain levels of hives, or with creep/DI etc.
The simple fact is the OP is correct. The game is too complex to sell mainstream, those that bought without playing NS1 will find it tough and challenging, which isn't a bad thing. Although your main stream FPS or RTS gamer may be disappointed.
<!--quoteo(post=1816485:date=Dec 16 2010, 11:55 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Dec 16 2010, 11:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816485"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No offense TrC, but you are absolutely full of hot air.
A lot of people on here, including myself state the same thing over and over.
# NS2 is great, we don't want to simplify it but:
# Interface / game play / learning curve needs a lot of work - possible answers A. B. C.
Yet the reaction on here is "don't make it easier!", "shout stuff!", "make condescending remarks!".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
because making the game any easier is dilluting the game itself. what more do the devs need to do? the game isnt finished yet but we already know they will be implementing things to help guide YOURSELF in the game. so what exactly about the game is hard. about the only confusing thing in the game is the carbon/plasma/energy mechanic and even if you dont know which means which, you can look at the colors and go "oh, that costs 10 green things... gotcha"
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is easy to sit on here and say "It's fine, don't change it!". But haven't you been playing NS1 for years, and now NS2... of course you understand it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, theyve changed a lot about the game already. there are a lot of things a ns1 player would have to learn and adjust to. but lets face it, theres no getting around that fact that an experienced NS player would have an advantage over someone fresh to the game. you just cant change that fact so what exactly would be your "fix"?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"I can't work out how to command"
"I can't find my team mates, this is frustrating I can't be bothered"
"I can't be arsed to play a tutorial, I want to jump straight in and have fun. I keep dying, I don't understand i'm off..."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
almost all games have some sort of tut/training in the game these days since i guess critical thinking flew out the window years ago. i cant say if ns2 will or not because i dont know. also theres no mini map implemented yet for marines outside the comchair.... as for trying to command, a tut can only do so much, and just about every player should learn how to play before trying to command.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I saw a video once of a reason for a products failure. It showed a women trying to get the contents out of a medicine bottle, but whilst simple, she still failed to understand it. So she blamed herself for it and decided not to buy it again. Or advise others to buy it.
The company producing it couldn't explain the horrible sales, and it took GOOD design practices to understand why. Such as talking to users, and observing how they use the product.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If youre too stupid to understand how to open a medicine bottle then you shouldnt be taking something that could potentially kill you. the instructions are on the bottle.. so youre using an incorrect example to begin with. marines arent complicated to play outside of commander and thats more micromanaging than anything. how exactly does the dev team design a game that is easier than go where were commander tells you, shoot the bad thing that are trying to kill you, occasionaly help build something. or, hide on roof, wait till humans pass under you, press mouse1 till something dies. with your viewpoint they would take away the skulk in mouth cam.. because afterall people complained about that way back in ns1. and look how many slit their wrists over it.. oh wait..
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The same views I hear on these forums all the time are the same.
"They probably shouldn't be playing it!"... complete ignorance. The same sort of people say "all those CS kiddies came over and ruined it". What do these comments actually mean, do they have basis?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> if someone doesnt have the patience to learn to play the game then maybe they shouldnt complain about the game being "broken" "unbalanced" "unplayable" and "too hard" and this is the case in 98% of the times ppl make these accusations about any game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one is expecting the game to be playable in 5 minutes, but you should understand what you should be doing during that 5 minutes learning as you go. Otherwise the game architecture has failed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> thats why there is a .. wait for it....
commander
if you choose to ignore the com and do your own thing and die over and over, thats your fault. the devs cant program you to play as a team. they can only program the game to allow teamwork to make the game flow naturally.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At the moment, you join the game and there is no introduction, no understanding.
Good design works around people, it should not expect people to work around design.
And no, you can't solve every issue, and there is not always an answer. But there is definitely room for improvement as far as NS1/NS2 is concerned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the game isnt even released yet and the vast majority of people who pre-purchased the game are ppl who played ns1 so the need hasnt arrisen for a tut yet. my opinion is sofar the design works fine, and yes theres room for improvment which is why its still in beta and not an actual released game.
I am developing a small game ( not comparable with the size and scope of NS2 in any manner or form ), and I am concentrating on ironing out the mechanics of the game now and leaving the UI polish till last. I first want to have a game , before I try to polish it and teach others how to play it.
It is safe to assume that the majority of pre orders and special edition purchasers have some idea of what type of game NS is , and jumping from NS to NS 2 is no big deal... as a result its safe to imagine that the UI , tip boxes, various feedback mechanisms etc etc are on the backburner till the game is running relatively smoothly.
... after all its not impossible to pull out whole ideas out of the game even at this stage, so why waste time polishing the tool tip that explains that idea ?
Short ver. : Its too early to really comment on the UI , tooltips , feedback mechanisms and teaching aids at this stage, but it is a relavant topic to be discussed when we get closer to completion.
<!--quoteo(post=1816498:date=Dec 16 2010, 01:35 PM:name=PaiSand)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PaiSand @ Dec 16 2010, 01:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816498"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Who cares about SC1 and 2... The only important thing on this thread is that the creator of it looks like the same guy that always create a new account just to talk trash.
Hi, nice to meet you. My name is Jason. I am a lifelong gamer and a veteran of a number of software startups in Austin, TX. I can be found at <a href="http://www.facebook.com/nolasco" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/nolasco</a> and <a href="http://www.twitter.com/plaintext" target="_blank">http://www.twitter.com/plaintext</a>. I didn't mean to be anonymous 1-post guy, but a) it didn't strike me as relevant and b) I don't think it would have helped the case. It would probably be more relevant to note that I did play quite a bit of NS1 (via CoFR) if that wasn't apparent.
This discussion is varied and fun to read. Again, my position is that hardcore people simply value preparation. Athletes do it, politicians do it, gamers do it. If that's how they want to spend their time on Earth then great. Some people enjoy long-distance unicycling and most people think unicycles are cool, but way more people have cars.
Everyone else wants to learn while having fun. It's WoW vs. EQ. Talk smack all you want about WoW, but it is a good game that transcended the punishments that EQ used to dole out. I actually loved EQ more than DAoC more than WoW, but I can't deny that WoW is the better game from the perspective of game mechanics and playability. From a business perspective, one obviously sells way more than the rest combined.
Some points:
<ul><li> We live in a world of limited resources. I get that. If these types of improvements don't make it in because of that, I'm totally on board for that. However, if design emphasizes that the game be fun after x hours, then I'm going to have trouble getting even the most easily excitable (but old) friends to play. *I* think it's fun as is, but I understand that this is a business.</li><li> Making games for the hardcore is fine, as long as you have enough people to fill your servers at 1AM on a Tuesday. Games that do phenomenally well run on modest hardware (check!) and are easy to have fun while you figure them about (sort of check!). Great, complex games -- even those with simple controls -- do not necessarily make great business. I suggest checking out "Tilt: The Battle to Save Pinball", which documents how video games didn't kill pinball... profit margins on stupider games did.</li><li> These mythical 16-year-olds you speak of aren't going to be playing your game regardless of direction, not en masse. They're all playing console. Accept that you and your peers are old. The average NS2 player probably sneaks in an hour or two after work, not between classes.</li><li> Simple does not necessarily mean easy. It's not a one-dimensional scale. All games strive to be both simple and skillful. I can write the rules for Go on a 3x5 index card and it's a few thousand years old. Rarely do you hear of an expert/professional/savant in any field argue for complexity over simplicity.</li><li> SC2 is SC1 with new rules and a slightly less hamstrung interface. Did you know that there was initially some backlash against rallying workers to mineral lines? It took away from micro. That's moronic. I played campaign about about 50-100 games of multi to platinum or low diamond (I forget) as P and T. SC2 was largely a business decision. How many day one players are still playing? How many even bothered with more than 5 games of multi? I'd like to see those numbers. I only played so much so I could make sure I saw the actual game before passing judgment. It's well made, but I can't remember a single exciting moment.</li><li> Realism is a terrible justification for making game compromises for feedback, playability, and situational awareness. 99% of your players in-game do not want guns that jam, non-potable water, or floor burns. I bet you guys are big board game players, right? I don't want to worry about paying train conductors in Ticket to Ride or taking my anti-malarial drugs in Lost Cities. Abstractions exist to clarify the mental model. Once they get in the way of the actual game, you have two choices a) go down the path of Civil War reenactment or b) pare it down.</li></ul>
Weren't they adding some sort of lit pathway to your waypoints a la UT3?
Anyways, I agree to most of the points. yourbonesakin pretty much summed it all up on<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=111958&view=findpost&p=1816428" target="_blank"> this post</a>.
Really it's not about simplifying, it's giving better feedback. For example, we need a minimap you can pull up. We need paths to your waypoints. Info on what killed you during respawn would be AWESOME (see League of Legends or TF2 pop-ups).
And iconic navigation will come later once we have more than just trams and rocks. NS1 had very recognizable rooms. Just gotta let the mappers spread their wings.
However, simplifying isn't the answer. Yeah the UI needs work, but I think the underlying game mechanics so far work. It's just that not all of it is easily accessible for your jump-in-and-play player.
McGlaspiewww.team156.comJoin Date: 2010-07-26Member: 73044Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Onos, WC 2013 - Gold, Subnautica Playtester
edited December 2010
I'm not going to say much , but there is a really important point that I think a lot of people are missing.
Complexity is a <b>good</b> thing. Complexity lends depth and breadth to the game. This in-turn increases how replayable a game is. The more replayable a game is, the longer it survives. This has been the case for decades and the same concept applies to ANY game: Card games, board games, video games, etc. Do you think Chess should be simplified? If it was, it wouldn't be chess anymore, and if you got carried away with the "process of user-friendliness" it would end up being nothing more than Checkers.
There are two problems going on here (for the most part have already been stated in this thread) 1) Not enough Feedback / Help by the game to new(er) players 2) People seem to think simplification of game mechanics is the answer, it's not!
The game's general lack of "Welcome to the world of NS" type content/mechanics is a simple by-product of the current stage of development. These kinds of feature(s) get folded into a game later in development. How are they supposed to provide useful feedback to a player when a feature is incomplete or not finalized? I'm completely confident that UWE is aware of this and has plans to not only make a single or series of in-game tutorials, but also is going to revamp the Tooltips / Feedback mechanics already in game. A simple example that would improve things quite a bit is having a small bit of GUI telling player's the name of the area they are currently in. Hell, the Mini-map isn't even in a finished state yet people! We all know the mini-map will be added for both Marine and Alien players (in some form or another), not just commanders and it's going to evolve (no pun) and get improved. A perfect example of my point is the difference between the Alien Commander GUI from B158 to B159, it's a big improvement in B159.
Now, my point that's probably going to get me flamed (Ahh! FT blindness! =P). Every time the "Simplification Ax" comes out, a portion or chunk of the game is removed. Now, do NOT misunderstand the difference between Refining and Simplification. It is a massive difference between the two. So, if the pseudo powers of simplification were applied to NS2, then the game wouldn't be NS2 anymore. Run through a simple exercise in your mind and begin removing portions of the game that you believe to be overly complicated. Once you start doing that, you have to examine why you leave other portions on the game in place. Depending on how far you go, you'll begin to find that large parts of the game are no longer needed, in any form.
Here is a simple example, let's say we want to making building easier, so the gorge can now build everything. Well, now there isn't much reason for the Alien Commander to exist (yes, that was a over simplification, but it is still a relevant example). The same kind of example can be applied all over the place. Long story short, NS <b>IS</b> a complex game, it always has been and always (hopefully) will be. This is one of its strengths, not its weakness. I think we need to stop jumping to conclusions (grab your Jump to Conclusions mat everybody!) and wait for more bug fixes, features, and polish to be implemented before we can start saying the kinds of things in this thread. In many ways, the entire point of this thread is premature seeing how the game isn't close to feature complete and not had any "polish time".
Its always been important for us to make NS2 much more understandable and accessible to new players then NS1 was, without sacrificing a robust set of features that leads to depth of gameplay. Understandably its a pretty tall order. Many of the biggest issues causing confusion to new players we've known about for quite some time, and we have either not had the time to address yet, are in the process of dealing with, or we are still mulling over a variety of options of how best to deal with it.
Areas like the commander UI is already getting an overhaul, minimaps are being reworked and added, the names of the resources are being changed to be clearer and better implemented so that the player can see and understand them more easily, tooltips will likely get more attention once more of the features are final, and maps will continue to be improved where necessary with lighting, signs, etc. to help get around more easily. We've got some other ideas we've been discussing lately that we are going to try out, as well.
It is still always helpful to hear about experiences that new players are having, as some things that may seem perfectly clear and obvious to us, can actually be quite the opposite.
How can you blame someone for asking for help? A fresh new player should join a game and enjoy the experience while learning what to do. Not slip off the steep learning curve.
Oh I see Cory has made epic post about gameplay stuff. Yay Cory :D
<!--quoteo(post=1816539:date=Dec 16 2010, 09:51 PM:name=McGlaspie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (McGlaspie @ Dec 16 2010, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816539"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not going to say much , but there is a really important point that I think a lot of people are missing.
Complexity is a <b>good</b> thing. Complexity lends depth and breadth to the game. This in-turn increases how replayable a game is. The more replayable a game is, the longer it survives. This has been the case for decades and the same concept applies to ANY game: Card games, board games, video games, etc. Do you think Chess should be simplified? If it was, it wouldn't be chess anymore, and if you got carried away with the "process of user-friendliness" it would end up being nothing more than Checkers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chess <i>is</i> simple, it has a quite simple set of rules and premise. All the depth comes from the players. Its depth comes from it being an expression of the human mind, and all its capacity for inventiveness, deception, planning, prediction, and all the other skills that are useful in chess.
It has a variety of pieces which move in different ways, some have a special ability or two, and it has one combat mechanic. It's simpler than most videogames, but it works because the players make it work.
You don't get good gameplay from having excessive complexity, you get it from having emergent depth, which is not the same thing. Emergent depth is when you get something deep from simple components. Poker is another simple game, the overall premise is that you are randomly assigned a hand which may be better or worse than other people's at any one time. All the gameplay comes from whether you are good at bluffing. Even simple games like tetris, fill lines with blocks to get points. The depth comes from the application of the one principle.
Throwing in a million components is a very poor way to get depth, because the complexity gets in the way of the fun, in emergent depth there is no complexity, the game scales with you. As an alien in NS, if you want to add an element like say, misdirection, you can do that simply by trying to. You don't need to know where the misdirection button is and you don't need to ask the commander to drop some misdirection for you except he can't because he ran out of misdirection resources. You can simply use your fade to lead a marine away, then round a corner in a T junction but then teleport backwards down the other path and him to take the path you appeared to take, then whack him from behind. That is a good feature because it takes a simple power, the ability to teleport, and applies it in a new way as a stealth mechanic, while not requring any further input control wise.
Good mechanics are versatile mechanics, make one mechanic do many things, apply it in many ways, that gives you emergent depth, rather than adding a new mechanic for every possible situation. In NS you could for example remove the onos charge ability and simply make impact damage an inherent property of a moving onos. That takes the movement mechanic and expands it to make it also function as an attack mechanic. You could remove E build, the welder, and medpacks, and instead unify all three under a general purpose toolkit given to every marine, pressing E on an unbuilt building or damaged building makes him take out his welder an build/fix it, pressing E on a wounded soldier makes him take out a medpack and stick a needle in the marine to heal him some. Add a universal charge meter to both the welder and the medpack to prevent TF2 medigunning with it, and you simplify the game but keep the depth, instead of having three different mechanics for healing, welding, and building, you have one mechanic that does all three.
<!--quoteo(post=1816539:date=Dec 16 2010, 02:51 PM:name=McGlaspie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (McGlaspie @ Dec 16 2010, 02:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816539"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not going to say much , but there is a really important point that I think a lot of people are missing.
Complexity is a <b>good</b> thing. Complexity lends depth and breadth to the game. This in-turn increases how replayable a game is. The more replayable a game is, the longer it survives. This has been the case for decades and the same concept applies to ANY game: Card games, board games, video games, etc. Do you think Chess should be simplified? If it was, it wouldn't be chess anymore, and if you got carried away with the "process of user-friendliness" it would end up being nothing more than Checkers.
There are two problems going on here (for the most part have already been stated in this thread) 1) Not enough Feedback / Help by the game to new(er) players 2) People seem to think simplification of game mechanics is the answer, it's not!
The game's general lack of "Welcome to the world of NS" type content/mechanics is a simple by-product of the current stage of development. These kinds of feature(s) get folded into a game later in development. How are they supposed to provide useful feedback to a player when a feature is incomplete or not finalized? I'm completely confident that UWE is aware of this and has plans to not only make a single or series of in-game tutorials, but also is going to revamp the Tooltips / Feedback mechanics already in game. A simple example that would improve things quite a bit is having a small bit of GUI telling player's the name of the area they are currently in. Hell, the Mini-map isn't even in a finished state yet people! We all know the mini-map will be added for both Marine and Alien players (in some form or another), not just commanders and it's going to evolve (no pun) and get improved. A perfect example of my point is the difference between the Alien Commander GUI from B158 to B159, it's a big improvement in B159.
Now, my point that's probably going to get me flamed (Ahh! FT blindness! =P). Every time the "Simplification Ax" comes out, a portion or chunk of the game is removed. Now, do NOT misunderstand the difference between Refining and Simplification. It is a massive difference between the two. So, if the pseudo powers of simplification were applied to NS2, then the game wouldn't be NS2 anymore. Run through a simple exercise in your mind and begin removing portions of the game that you believe to be overly complicated. Once you start doing that, you have to examine why you leave other portions on the game in place. Depending on how far you go, you'll begin to find that large parts of the game are no longer needed, in any form.
Here is a simple example, let's say we want to making building easier, so the gorge can now build everything. Well, now there isn't much reason for the Alien Commander to exist (yes, that was a over simplification, but it is still a relevant example). The same kind of example can be applied all over the place. Long story short, NS <b>IS</b> a complex game, it always has been and always (hopefully) will be. This is one of its strengths, not its weakness. I think we need to stop jumping to conclusions (grab your Jump to Conclusions mat everybody!) and wait for more bug fixes, features, and polish to be implemented before we can start saying the kinds of things in this thread. In many ways, the entire point of this thread is premature seeing how the game isn't close to feature complete and not had any "polish time".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1816542:date=Dec 16 2010, 03:12 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Dec 16 2010, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816542"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Chess <i>is</i> simple, it has a quite simple set of rules and premise. All the depth comes from the players. Its depth comes from it being an expression of the human mind, and all its capacity for inventiveness, deception, planning, prediction, and all the other skills that are useful in chess.
It has a variety of pieces which move in different ways, some have a special ability or two, and it has one combat mechanic. It's simpler than most videogames, but it works because the players make it work.
You don't get good gameplay from having excessive complexity, you get it from having emergent depth, which is not the same thing. Emergent depth is when you get something deep from simple components. Poker is another simple game, the overall premise is that you are randomly assigned a hand which may be better or worse than other people's at any one time. All the gameplay comes from whether you are good at bluffing. Even simple games like tetris, fill lines with blocks to get points. The depth comes from the application of the one principle.
Throwing in a million components is a very poor way to get depth, because the complexity gets in the way of the fun, in emergent depth there is no complexity, the game scales with you. As an alien in NS, if you want to add an element like say, misdirection, you can do that simply by trying to. You don't need to know where the misdirection button is and you don't need to ask the commander to drop some misdirection for you except he can't because he ran out of misdirection resources. You can simply use your fade to lead a marine away, then round a corner in a T junction but then teleport backwards down the other path and him to take the path you appeared to take, then whack him from behind. That is a good feature because it takes a simple power, the ability to teleport, and applies it in a new way as a stealth mechanic, while not requring any further input control wise.
Good mechanics are versatile mechanics, make one mechanic do many things, apply it in many ways, that gives you emergent depth, rather than adding a new mechanic for every possible situation. In NS you could for example remove the onos charge ability and simply make impact damage an inherent property of a moving onos. That takes the movement mechanic and expands it to make it also function as an attack mechanic. You could remove E build, the welder, and medpacks, and instead unify all three under a general purpose toolkit given to every marine, pressing E on an unbuilt building or damaged building makes him take out his welder an build/fix it, pressing E on a wounded soldier makes him take out a medpack and stick a needle in the marine to heal him some. Add a universal charge meter to both the welder and the medpack to prevent TF2 medigunning with it, and you simplify the game but keep the depth, instead of having three different mechanics for healing, welding, and building, you have one mechanic that does all three.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1816382:date=Dec 16 2010, 11:50 AM:name=noisywalrus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noisywalrus @ Dec 16 2010, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816382"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Disclaimer: I think it's fair to start providing feedback about what appear to be clear philosophical decisions. I can only make guesses about what is a placeholder. I don't know the gaming industry, but I know a little about playing games, a little about software engineering, and a little about how to read a balance sheet. My analysis below is based half on what I think is sound gameplay and half on what I think is sound business.
The situation: Fast-forward some months from now. The feature set might be looking pretty darn complete. Crashes are down, framerate is up, and everything is all double rainbows on the Big Rock Candy Mountain. It's good to report bugs, but idiotic to cry about them. It'll all get fixed. However, I think some design decisions being made right now could have some unintended consequences later.
The uncomfortable truth: Many gamers are intimidated by NS2. I assume this is bad. Maybe you don't want to make compromises and only want to make the game you always wanted to make for you and like-minded people. That would be both awesome and valid, but if that is the case then I can offer no useful suggestions.
If you *do* want to attract more people, here's why I think they are intimidated (many I've heard from people I know who refused to play NS1 more than a day) and how I think this can be addressed:
<b>Domain knowledge required to play a single game is staggering.</b>
<ul><li> Problem: Map navigation, chokepoints, buildings, tech trees, team status, in-game conventions, etc... and you still have to be a decent shot.</li><li> Sucks because: Few people want to feel like they have to study just to play a game.</li><li> Hardcore people love it because: Predetermined advantages are what competitive people thrive on.</li><li> Potential solutions: Extremely deep tutorials, raidframe-style popups ("you're standing in the fire") that are suppressed once you demonstrate that you get it (like L4D), more feedback about game/player/team state and what player can do to correct negative behaviors and repeat positive ones</li></ul>
<b>Maps are confusing and one hallway looks the same as the next.</b>
<ul><li> Problem: Right now, the maps look like these big generic collection of sci-fi corridors. Best way to figure out where you are is to type something in chat. Even then, it's highly likely that the name of your current location is some abstract concept ("Access Tunnel") that provides no helpful context. How far am I away from home? How far to the enemy base? Is the room next door relatively safer or not? Makes awesome screenshots, but it's tough to construct a mental picture in your head about without playing one for 2+ hours.</li><li> Sucks because: New players shouldn't have to pull up their minimap (which I assume will exist in final). They're excited but held back by a) getting yelled at for wandering off and b) not knowing where to go when someone says WEST! OMG IT'S GOING DOWN. NOW, DAMMIT.</li><li> Hardcore people love it because: Predetermined advantages are what competitive people thrive on.</li><li> Potential solution: Compasses, minimaps (as a fallback), signposts everywhere (TF2), waypoints that can trace through the centers of the intermediate rooms (GPS-style), ability for players to set their own waypoints on minimap, Crazy Taxi "smart" heading arrow. BIG lights around pathable doors and vents. (Fun fact: most marines don't know there's a 3rd exit out of marine start in tram because your doors don't look walkable.)</li></ul>
<b>Dying with no feedback is frustrating.</b>
<ul><li> Problem: Hey, I think I see someth.... splat.</li><li> Sucks because: It's really hard to figure out what you did wrong whe... splat.</li><li> Hardcore people love it because: I'm not sure anyone likes this besides people who are playing with the currently-hilarious lerk alt-fire down long hallways.</li><li> Potential solution: Deathcam, 5-second instant replay, reminders about the weapon that killed you ("protip: flames will blind you for 2.5 seconds and do x dmg per second with a y/sec dot. At full blast, your fade will last 4.7 seconds with current armor.")</li></ul>
<b>Buildings are confusing and do not reflect purpose or importance well.</b>
<ul><li> Problem: Do the spores coming out of that reef rock hurt me like the gas? Which way is this turret pointed? How do I get a different gun? What's this big grey box in the middle of base?</li><li> Sucks because: You would never think life or death -- especially as a marine -- comes down to the little metal disc on the ground that just got eaten by a skulk.</li><li> Hardcore people love it because: "Well, you should've learned the game/read the manual/studied the playguide/hung out in the forum/etc."</li><li> Potential solutions: Art is expensive. I understand if that's not changing. Maybe lose the subtlety and make open res nodes produce more smoke and glow, create video demos that can be played in-game of what each structure does (think SC2), L4D-style white outlines + tooltips over things you can interact with in the world. Built, unbuilt, and damaged states wouldn't hurt either. Alien buildings do a pretty good job of expressing function via silhouette, but marine buildings? In an ideal world, com chairs would have glass windows so you can see a guy sits inside it, armories would have gun racks mounted on the outside, etc.</li></ul>
<b>Commander is impossible to practice.</b> <ul><li> Problem: People who want to really see what this RTS/FPS thing is about don't really have a way to do so.</li><li> Potential solutions: Better UI (I'm sure you're working on it) that emphasizes decision-making over physical dexterity. Think MMO healer or tank. They manage situations, not firearms. I have some ideas for this which I may post later. Create an environment that allows the com to do really great things, rather than just avoid doing stupid things or running errands on a schedule (re: the sadly stuck-in-1998 SC2 design).</li></ul>
Overall: <b>Simplify.</b> Insert your favorite quote here about perfection being simply the minimal viable good idea. It looks fantastic right now, guys. Now to just get more people to give it a chance to show them how much fun it can be....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1816542:date=Dec 17 2010, 01:12 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Dec 17 2010, 01:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816542"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Chess <i>is</i> simple, it has a quite simple set of rules and premise. All the depth comes from the players. Its depth comes from it being an expression of the human mind, and all its capacity for inventiveness, deception, planning, prediction, and all the other skills that are useful in chess.
You don't get good gameplay from having excessive complexity, you get it from having emergent depth, which is not the same thing. Emergent depth is when you get something deep from simple components. Poker is another simple game, the overall premise is that you are randomly assigned a hand which may be better or worse than other people's at any one time. All the gameplay comes from whether you are good at bluffing. Even simple games like tetris, fill lines with blocks to get points. The depth comes from the application of the one principle. does all three.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Imagery depth would be more approriate term, if you bring up tetris or poker. They are not deep like chess or Go (most complex and popular board game) which require actual experience and thinking to achieve actual skill.
You bring up chess as a simple game just because you are familiar with the rules but unlike in one round of poker chances of you beating someone with great experience are much slimmer. Most singleplayers use this kind of "trick" if I may to fool player into thinking he is acting wisely by lets say taking cover behind boxes in random FPS shooter and then blatantly adding them along the game.
True depth comes from actual amount of choices that do effect positively or negatively and force your opponent to react or face unfair situation he is put into.
<!--quoteo(post=1816539:date=Dec 16 2010, 04:51 PM:name=McGlaspie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (McGlaspie @ Dec 16 2010, 04:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816539"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...] Do you think Chess should be simplified? If it was, it wouldn't be chess anymore, and if you got carried away with the "process of user-friendliness" it would end up being nothing more than Checkers.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Compared to the original chess the (european) chess you know looks like checkers. A four player game in the beginning it has been stripped down so many times over the last centuries until the last 'large' patch in ~1500 a.d.
<!--quoteo(post=1816586:date=Dec 17 2010, 12:14 AM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Dec 17 2010, 12:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816586"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagery depth would be more approriate term, if you bring up tetris or poker. They are not deep like chess or Go (most complex and popular board game) which require actual experience and thinking to achieve actual skill.
You bring up chess as a simple game just because you are familiar with the rules but unlike in one round of poker chances of you beating someone with great experience are much slimmer. Most singleplayers use this kind of "trick" if I may to fool player into thinking he is acting wisely by lets say taking cover behind boxes in random FPS shooter and then blatantly adding them along the game.
True depth comes from actual amount of choices that do effect positively or negatively and force your opponent to react or face unfair situation he is put into.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes tetris is less complex than chess and it is less deep, there is a limit to how much you can expand one mechanic to create gameplay. At some point you do have to add more mechanics to get more depth, but if you do it properly you shouldn't need to add many, because going from one to two mechanics for your game should quadruple the amount of emergent depth you get. IF, they are good mechanics.
If they are bad mechanics that are extremely situatonal and not useable in other areas, then your complexity and useability will suffer, and you won't get much fun out of it. Depth does indeed come from stuff you can do in the game, but you can either create it the stupid way, by adding millions of mechanics that are hard to understand, or you can add a few good ones that interact well and cover a wide area of the game, and get something which is extremely easy to pick up, but which has a lot of stuff in it.
Its always been important for us to make NS2 much more understandable and accessible to new players then NS1 was, without sacrificing a robust set of features that leads to depth of gameplay. Understandably its a pretty tall order. Many of the biggest issues causing confusion to new players we've known about for quite some time, and we have either not had the time to address yet, are in the process of dealing with, or we are still mulling over a variety of options of how best to deal with it.
Areas like the commander UI is already getting an overhaul, minimaps are being reworked and added, the names of the resources are being changed to be clearer and better implemented so that the player can see and understand them more easily, tooltips will likely get more attention once more of the features are final, and maps will continue to be improved where necessary with lighting, signs, etc. to help get around more easily. We've got some other ideas we've been discussing lately that we are going to try out, as well.
It is still always helpful to hear about experiences that new players are having, as some things that may seem perfectly clear and obvious to us, can actually be quite the opposite.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cory, I have a suggestion w.r.t. making resources more understandable - changing up the color schemes. Green is too similar to blue since the only visual indication between them in the commander UI is a small circle, with an indistinguishable graphic (unless you look closely). I'd change that to be something with more contrast - yellow/orange and blue, for example.
<!--quoteo(post=1816623:date=Dec 17 2010, 02:22 AM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Dec 17 2010, 02:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816623"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Cory, I have a suggestion w.r.t. making resources more understandable - changing up the color schemes. Green is too similar to blue since the only visual indication between them in the commander UI is a small circle, with an indistinguishable graphic (unless you look closely). I'd change that to be something with more contrast - yellow/orange and blue, for example.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Green and blue are quite distinct to me, whereas green and yellow are the same colour.
Generally you'd be better off making different shapes rather than relying entirely on colour.
Its always been important for us to make NS2 much more understandable and accessible to new players then NS1 was, without sacrificing a robust set of features that leads to depth of gameplay. Understandably its a pretty tall order. Many of the biggest issues causing confusion to new players we've known about for quite some time, and we have either not had the time to address yet, are in the process of dealing with, or we are still mulling over a variety of options of how best to deal with it.
Areas like the commander UI is already getting an overhaul, minimaps are being reworked and added, the names of the resources are being changed to be clearer and better implemented so that the player can see and understand them more easily, tooltips will likely get more attention once more of the features are final, and maps will continue to be improved where necessary with lighting, signs, etc. to help get around more easily. We've got some other ideas we've been discussing lately that we are going to try out, as well.
It is still always helpful to hear about experiences that new players are having, as some things that may seem perfectly clear and obvious to us, can actually be quite the opposite.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aren't those issues something that should have pre-planned and written in to your design as a core element, started from the outset and not incrementally changed?
Sounds like an awful lot of re-working and change from the current game model.
Comments
You understand why strategy games are popular or perhaps even "good", right? Right? I mean, I never thought of you as an idiot and this is the official NS2 forum. Perhaps you have just never thought about this. Rewards for mental effort? Ordering armies in war games? Watching sci-fi effects? Is any of this ringing a bell?
Let me talk about SC1 specifically. SC1 was popular in 1998 because it had great graphics, FREE multiplayer, and balanced truly asymmetric races brought over numerous patches. To put it modestly, SC1 was new and good. From 2000 onward, SC1 was recognized as the best computer strategy game of all time. Having mother ###### birthed esports in south korea, it also had an esports scene to amuse and inspire novices as they dreamed big.
However, SC1 was made in 1998. It had a hostile interface, to say the least. Warcraft 3 came out, and people slowly stopped caring about SC1.
SC2 was made to be an esport. Balanced as the first priority. Impossible to fully master as a close second priority. Large strategic complexity. Great graphics naturally. True to the original, but innovative. Right now, SC2 has the largest esports scene on the entire planet. SC1 career gamers are swiching over as quickly as their contracts run out and are never looking back. SC1 hobbyist gamers are doing the same. SC2's graphics are comparable to Crysis (that game websites use as a benchmarking tool for graphics cards).
SC2 has fully and completed satisfied its design objectives of being better than SC1 in all ways and a platform for global esports expansion. SC2 is slated to be one of the most important games of the next decade or even ever, if it brings esports to the mainstream in western civilization. SC2 is perhaps the best example of game design we have.
You may not agree with what the game design of SC2 accomplished, but you cannot ever say it is a bad example of game design.
You sir, are wrong. *Adjusts monocle*.
Yes, I am mocking myself. But I do it for the lulz, because I am mayhaps too serious. Serious business indeed. I just care about video games' ascension into mainstream society, so hearing ignorance pains my fragile disposition. Some would say I have a soft spot for video games in my heart. I would say I have a sweet tooth, grown in proportion to that of a saber tooth tiger, ready to strike at the core of all those who oppose me. Beware.
Yes, that was a Diablo 2 Necro quote ^^.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Competition is bleh, don't see the point, don't enjoy it. I cannot see the appeal.
I understand why <i>I</i> like RTS games, because I play all of the ones I listed (except WIC, I play ground control 2 which is basically the same thing).
I do not see the appeal of SC, it isn't very strategic, nor were most RTS games in days of yore. I used to play red alert 2 but I can't stand it now, because I have played far better strategy games, and having done that I cannot go back to living in the dark ages. Surprisingly however age of empires 2 is still relatively playable, not as good as AOE3, but still OK. AOE3 uses more modern ideas, you win by organising your army well, not by spamming 30 million actions or building the right kind of unit, although good units do help.
Total war is probably the pinnacle of RTS games, it is almost entirely about strategy and tactics, has really very little to do with what units you build, you're always best off building a balanced army with a few different units in and using it well, you can't win by rushing or spamming actions or having the right units. You have to win by thought.#
SC1 is popular because it was made in the dark ages and people didn't know any better, SC2 is popular because a ridiculously high proportion of people got hooked on the terrible dark age RTS gameplay and they all went out and bought SC1 in a shiny box when it got released. That's what blizzard does, it makes a game and if it does well, it milks the crap out of it by releasing more of the same with a shinier box. And it make a damn fortune off it for the same reason EA makes all its money off of FIFA 20XX and madden NFL 20XX. You don't need to change anything, you just release the same game, say it's new, and your massive existing fanbase will buy it and say it's wonderful.
However as UWE doesn't have much of an existing fanbase, that is not a good design approach for NS2. They need to be innovative, use all the modern advances that have been made in design, and appeal to a wider audience.
A lot of people on here, including myself state the same thing over and over.
# NS2 is great, we don't want to simplify it but:
# Interface / game play / learning curve needs a lot of work - possible answers A. B. C.
Yet the reaction on here is "don't make it easier!", "shout stuff!", "make condescending remarks!".
You stick up for Starcraft, yet condemn that escapists video link which pretty much sums up SC2.
It is easy to sit on here and say "It's fine, don't change it!". But haven't you been playing NS1 for years, and now NS2... of course you understand it.
If you are all about game play, how about all the comments on here in relation to FPS/server issues.
"I'm not going to bother, i'll come back when it is playable".
In it's most simplistic form, these issues are stopping you, the players from playing the game. In the same way that this will:
"I can't work out how to command"
"I can't find my team mates, this is frustrating I can't be bothered"
"I can't be arsed to play a tutorial, I want to jump straight in and have fun. I keep dying, I don't understand i'm off..."
I saw a video once of a reason for a products failure. It showed a women trying to get the contents out of a medicine bottle, but whilst simple, she still failed to understand it. So she blamed herself for it and decided not to buy it again. Or advise others to buy it.
The company producing it couldn't explain the horrible sales, and it took GOOD design practices to understand why. Such as talking to users, and observing how they use the product.
The same views I hear on these forums all the time are the same.
"They probably shouldn't be playing it!"... complete ignorance. The same sort of people say "all those CS kiddies came over and ruined it". What do these comments actually mean, do they have basis?
No one is expecting the game to be playable in 5 minutes, but you should understand what you should be doing during that 5 minutes learning as you go. Otherwise the game architecture has failed.
At the moment, you join the game and there is no introduction, no understanding.
Good design works around people, it should not expect people to work around design.
And no, you can't solve every issue, and there is not always an answer. But there is definitely room for improvement as far as NS1/NS2 is concerned.
Tram's central tramway can be a bit hard to see where you are, and there are bits of the connecting corridors which can be hard to tell apart, but generally yes each room is somewhat unique and corridors try to look distinct from each other.
I understand why <i>I</i> like RTS games, because I play all of the ones I listed (except WIC, I play ground control 2 which is basically the same thing).
I do not see the appeal of SC, it isn't very strategic, nor were most RTS games in days of yore. I used to play red alert 2 but I can't stand it now, because I have played far better strategy games, and having done that I cannot go back to living in the dark ages. Surprisingly however age of empires 2 is still relatively playable, not as good as AOE3, but still OK. AOE3 uses more modern ideas, you win by organising your army well, not by spamming 30 million actions or building the right kind of unit, although good units do help.
Total war is probably the pinnacle of RTS games, it is almost entirely about strategy and tactics, has really very little to do with what units you build, you're always best off building a balanced army with a few different units in and using it well, you can't win by rushing or spamming actions or having the right units. You have to win by thought.#
SC1 is popular because it was made in the dark ages and people didn't know any better, SC2 is popular because a ridiculously high proportion of people got hooked on the terrible dark age RTS gameplay and they all went out and bought SC1 in a shiny box when it got released. That's what blizzard does, it makes a game and if it does well, it milks the crap out of it by releasing more of the same with a shinier box. And it make a damn fortune off it for the same reason EA makes all its money off of FIFA 20XX and madden NFL 20XX. You don't need to change anything, you just release the same game, say it's new, and your massive existing fanbase will buy it and say it's wonderful.
However as UWE doesn't have much of an existing fanbase, that is not a good design approach for NS2. They need to be innovative, use all the modern advances that have been made in design, and appeal to a wider audience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SC1 and SC2 require thought. And SC1 has crazy requirements for controlling armies.... Crazy requirements. A single mistake, lasting a second, as 24 units die to AOE damage, can lose a game. Opportunities for single mistakes happen every time armies engage. It's not like NS1 with a distress beacon to save the day. Using unit abilities, orienting armies correctly while pushing, composing a versatile army. But that's SC1. SC2 is not as crazy. SC2 is more about managing economy and production than ordering armies.
I readily admit SC2's popularity is at least half attributed to the "2" in its name and that its developer is called "Blizzard-Activision". But it's still good. It's still balanced (getting there with some patches), difficult to master, has free internet multiplayer, a huge global community, the largest esports scene in the world to gaze upon from afar, amazing graphics, tactical real-time gameplay, an amazing single player campaign, and unbeatable replayability with its multiplayer.
SC2 is a good game, and a great game. I sound like a commerical, mostly because SC2 is actually that good.
The only important thing on this thread is that the creator of it looks like the same guy that always create a new account just to talk trash.
<b>Posts: 1
Joined: Yesterday, 09:28 PM</b>
The killcam is a great idea but I imagine hard to implement.
I am guessing based on on the games i have played with a bad 3rd-person camera.
I would rather see it later.
The tutorial stuff ... again alot of work to do.
I would start with something simple something I see in RPGs.
A browser of sort for the structures and creatures.
All that needs to be there is ...
a) The model or screenshot with consistent background.
b) A blurb of text.
This will fill in the gaps of these structures and creatures and their importance/usefulness/weakness.
Structures would be first on my list, creatures are a little more obvious.
The Hive
The aliens build hives to expand and build up their tech tree.
While on the marines killing the hive will set them back.
While on the aliens USING a hive makes you the alien commander
and giving you an RTS view for building structures.
Armory
Once built the armory provides marines with ammo and health.
As the commander researches different weapons they will become available in the armory and the marines can buy them.
While on marines just touching this structure should refill your ammo and health.
While on aliens destroying this structure will prevent the marines from purchasing weapons and refilling their health and ammo.
As always I think game features are a higher priority at this point.
But I am just thinking out loud.
The only important thing on this thread is that the creator of it looks like the same guy that always create a new account just to talk trash.
<b>Posts: 1
Joined: Yesterday, 09:28 PM</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But his post was <u>constructive</u>, so who cares who it is behind the account?
I remember reading a post from Flayra saying he was going to simplify NS2 as even he found it difficult to play once it got going and how he could understand why new players found it complex and hard to get in to.
So what has happened since then? SC2 got released and they've gone in to over drive with over complicating things, inert abilities on chambers, active abilities, upgrades on abilities at certain levels of hives, or with creep/DI etc.
The simple fact is the OP is correct. The game is too complex to sell mainstream, those that bought without playing NS1 will find it tough and challenging, which isn't a bad thing. Although your main stream FPS or RTS gamer may be disappointed.
A lot of people on here, including myself state the same thing over and over.
# NS2 is great, we don't want to simplify it but:
# Interface / game play / learning curve needs a lot of work - possible answers A. B. C.
Yet the reaction on here is "don't make it easier!", "shout stuff!", "make condescending remarks!".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
because making the game any easier is dilluting the game itself. what more do the devs need to do? the game isnt finished yet but we already know they will be implementing things to help guide YOURSELF in the game. so what exactly about the game is hard. about the only confusing thing in the game is the carbon/plasma/energy mechanic and even if you dont know which means which, you can look at the colors and go "oh, that costs 10 green things... gotcha"
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is easy to sit on here and say "It's fine, don't change it!". But haven't you been playing NS1 for years, and now NS2... of course you understand it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, theyve changed a lot about the game already. there are a lot of things a ns1 player would have to learn and adjust to. but lets face it, theres no getting around that fact that an experienced NS player would have an advantage over someone fresh to the game. you just cant change that fact so what exactly would be your "fix"?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"I can't work out how to command"
"I can't find my team mates, this is frustrating I can't be bothered"
"I can't be arsed to play a tutorial, I want to jump straight in and have fun. I keep dying, I don't understand i'm off..."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
almost all games have some sort of tut/training in the game these days since i guess critical thinking flew out the window years ago. i cant say if ns2 will or not because i dont know. also theres no mini map implemented yet for marines outside the comchair.... as for trying to command, a tut can only do so much, and just about every player should learn how to play before trying to command.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I saw a video once of a reason for a products failure. It showed a women trying to get the contents out of a medicine bottle, but whilst simple, she still failed to understand it. So she blamed herself for it and decided not to buy it again. Or advise others to buy it.
The company producing it couldn't explain the horrible sales, and it took GOOD design practices to understand why. Such as talking to users, and observing how they use the product.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If youre too stupid to understand how to open a medicine bottle then you shouldnt be taking something that could potentially kill you. the instructions are on the bottle.. so youre using an incorrect example to begin with. marines arent complicated to play outside of commander and thats more micromanaging than anything. how exactly does the dev team design a game that is easier than go where were commander tells you, shoot the bad thing that are trying to kill you, occasionaly help build something. or, hide on roof, wait till humans pass under you, press mouse1 till something dies. with your viewpoint they would take away the skulk in mouth cam.. because afterall people complained about that way back in ns1. and look how many slit their wrists over it.. oh wait..
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The same views I hear on these forums all the time are the same.
"They probably shouldn't be playing it!"... complete ignorance. The same sort of people say "all those CS kiddies came over and ruined it". What do these comments actually mean, do they have basis?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if someone doesnt have the patience to learn to play the game then maybe they shouldnt complain about the game being "broken" "unbalanced" "unplayable" and "too hard" and this is the case in 98% of the times ppl make these accusations about any game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one is expecting the game to be playable in 5 minutes, but you should understand what you should be doing during that 5 minutes learning as you go. Otherwise the game architecture has failed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats why there is a .. wait for it....
commander
if you choose to ignore the com and do your own thing and die over and over, thats your fault. the devs cant program you to play as a team. they can only program the game to allow teamwork to make the game flow naturally.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At the moment, you join the game and there is no introduction, no understanding.
Good design works around people, it should not expect people to work around design.
And no, you can't solve every issue, and there is not always an answer. But there is definitely room for improvement as far as NS1/NS2 is concerned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the game isnt even released yet and the vast majority of people who pre-purchased the game are ppl who played ns1 so the need hasnt arrisen for a tut yet. my opinion is sofar the design works fine, and yes theres room for improvment which is why its still in beta and not an actual released game.
I am developing a small game ( not comparable with the size and scope of NS2 in any manner or form ), and I am concentrating on ironing out the mechanics of the game now and leaving the UI polish till last.
I first want to have a game , before I try to polish it and teach others how to play it.
It is safe to assume that the majority of pre orders and special edition purchasers have some idea of what type of game NS is , and jumping from NS to NS 2 is no big deal... as a result its safe to imagine that the UI , tip boxes, various feedback mechanisms etc etc are on the backburner till the game is running relatively smoothly.
... after all its not impossible to pull out whole ideas out of the game even at this stage, so why waste time polishing the tool tip that explains that idea ?
Short ver. : Its too early to really comment on the UI , tooltips , feedback mechanisms and teaching aids at this stage, but it is a relavant topic to be discussed when we get closer to completion.
The only important thing on this thread is that the creator of it looks like the same guy that always create a new account just to talk trash.
<b>Posts: 1
Joined: Yesterday, 09:28 PM</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hi, nice to meet you. My name is Jason. I am a lifelong gamer and a veteran of a number of software startups in Austin, TX. I can be found at <a href="http://www.facebook.com/nolasco" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/nolasco</a> and <a href="http://www.twitter.com/plaintext" target="_blank">http://www.twitter.com/plaintext</a>. I didn't mean to be anonymous 1-post guy, but a) it didn't strike me as relevant and b) I don't think it would have helped the case. It would probably be more relevant to note that I did play quite a bit of NS1 (via CoFR) if that wasn't apparent.
This discussion is varied and fun to read. Again, my position is that hardcore people simply value preparation. Athletes do it, politicians do it, gamers do it. If that's how they want to spend their time on Earth then great. Some people enjoy long-distance unicycling and most people think unicycles are cool, but way more people have cars.
Everyone else wants to learn while having fun. It's WoW vs. EQ. Talk smack all you want about WoW, but it is a good game that transcended the punishments that EQ used to dole out. I actually loved EQ more than DAoC more than WoW, but I can't deny that WoW is the better game from the perspective of game mechanics and playability. From a business perspective, one obviously sells way more than the rest combined.
Some points:
<ul><li> We live in a world of limited resources. I get that. If these types of improvements don't make it in because of that, I'm totally on board for that. However, if design emphasizes that the game be fun after x hours, then I'm going to have trouble getting even the most easily excitable (but old) friends to play. *I* think it's fun as is, but I understand that this is a business.</li><li> Making games for the hardcore is fine, as long as you have enough people to fill your servers at 1AM on a Tuesday. Games that do phenomenally well run on modest hardware (check!) and are easy to have fun while you figure them about (sort of check!). Great, complex games -- even those with simple controls -- do not necessarily make great business. I suggest checking out "Tilt: The Battle to Save Pinball", which documents how video games didn't kill pinball... profit margins on stupider games did.</li><li> These mythical 16-year-olds you speak of aren't going to be playing your game regardless of direction, not en masse. They're all playing console. Accept that you and your peers are old. The average NS2 player probably sneaks in an hour or two after work, not between classes.</li><li> Simple does not necessarily mean easy. It's not a one-dimensional scale. All games strive to be both simple and skillful. I can write the rules for Go on a 3x5 index card and it's a few thousand years old. Rarely do you hear of an expert/professional/savant in any field argue for complexity over simplicity.</li><li> SC2 is SC1 with new rules and a slightly less hamstrung interface. Did you know that there was initially some backlash against rallying workers to mineral lines? It took away from micro. That's moronic. I played campaign about about 50-100 games of multi to platinum or low diamond (I forget) as P and T. SC2 was largely a business decision. How many day one players are still playing? How many even bothered with more than 5 games of multi? I'd like to see those numbers. I only played so much so I could make sure I saw the actual game before passing judgment. It's well made, but I can't remember a single exciting moment.</li><li> Realism is a terrible justification for making game compromises for feedback, playability, and situational awareness. 99% of your players in-game do not want guns that jam, non-potable water, or floor burns. I bet you guys are big board game players, right? I don't want to worry about paying train conductors in Ticket to Ride or taking my anti-malarial drugs in Lost Cities. Abstractions exist to clarify the mental model. Once they get in the way of the actual game, you have two choices a) go down the path of Civil War reenactment or b) pare it down.</li></ul>
Anyways, I agree to most of the points. yourbonesakin pretty much summed it all up on<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=111958&view=findpost&p=1816428" target="_blank"> this post</a>.
Really it's not about simplifying, it's giving better feedback. For example, we need a minimap you can pull up. We need paths to your waypoints. Info on what killed you during respawn would be AWESOME (see League of Legends or TF2 pop-ups).
And iconic navigation will come later once we have more than just trams and rocks. NS1 had very recognizable rooms. Just gotta let the mappers spread their wings.
However, simplifying isn't the answer. Yeah the UI needs work, but I think the underlying game mechanics so far work. It's just that not all of it is easily accessible for your jump-in-and-play player.
Overall, totally agree.
Complexity is a <b>good</b> thing. Complexity lends depth and breadth to the game. This in-turn increases how replayable a game is. The more replayable a game is, the longer it survives. This has been the case for decades and the same concept applies to ANY game: Card games, board games, video games, etc. Do you think Chess should be simplified? If it was, it wouldn't be chess anymore, and if you got carried away with the "process of user-friendliness" it would end up being nothing more than Checkers.
There are two problems going on here (for the most part have already been stated in this thread)
1) Not enough Feedback / Help by the game to new(er) players
2) People seem to think simplification of game mechanics is the answer, it's not!
The game's general lack of "Welcome to the world of NS" type content/mechanics is a simple by-product of the current stage of development. These kinds of feature(s) get folded into a game later in development. How are they supposed to provide useful feedback to a player when a feature is incomplete or not finalized? I'm completely confident that UWE is aware of this and has plans to not only make a single or series of in-game tutorials, but also is going to revamp the Tooltips / Feedback mechanics already in game. A simple example that would improve things quite a bit is having a small bit of GUI telling player's the name of the area they are currently in. Hell, the Mini-map isn't even in a finished state yet people! We all know the mini-map will be added for both Marine and Alien players (in some form or another), not just commanders and it's going to evolve (no pun) and get improved. A perfect example of my point is the difference between the Alien Commander GUI from B158 to B159, it's a big improvement in B159.
Now, my point that's probably going to get me flamed (Ahh! FT blindness! =P). Every time the "Simplification Ax" comes out, a portion or chunk of the game is removed. Now, do NOT misunderstand the difference between Refining and Simplification. It is a massive difference between the two. So, if the pseudo powers of simplification were applied to NS2, then the game wouldn't be NS2 anymore. Run through a simple exercise in your mind and begin removing portions of the game that you believe to be overly complicated. Once you start doing that, you have to examine why you leave other portions on the game in place. Depending on how far you go, you'll begin to find that large parts of the game are no longer needed, in any form.
Here is a simple example, let's say we want to making building easier, so the gorge can now build everything. Well, now there isn't much reason for the Alien Commander to exist (yes, that was a over simplification, but it is still a relevant example). The same kind of example can be applied all over the place. Long story short, NS <b>IS</b> a complex game, it always has been and always (hopefully) will be. This is one of its strengths, not its weakness. I think we need to stop jumping to conclusions (grab your Jump to Conclusions mat everybody!) and wait for more bug fixes, features, and polish to be implemented before we can start saying the kinds of things in this thread. In many ways, the entire point of this thread is premature seeing how the game isn't close to feature complete and not had any "polish time".
Its always been important for us to make NS2 much more understandable and accessible to new players then NS1 was, without sacrificing a robust set of features that leads to depth of gameplay. Understandably its a pretty tall order. Many of the biggest issues causing confusion to new players we've known about for quite some time, and we have either not had the time to address yet, are in the process of dealing with, or we are still mulling over a variety of options of how best to deal with it.
Areas like the commander UI is already getting an overhaul, minimaps are being reworked and added, the names of the resources are being changed to be clearer and better implemented so that the player can see and understand them more easily, tooltips will likely get more attention once more of the features are final, and maps will continue to be improved where necessary with lighting, signs, etc. to help get around more easily. We've got some other ideas we've been discussing lately that we are going to try out, as well.
It is still always helpful to hear about experiences that new players are having, as some things that may seem perfectly clear and obvious to us, can actually be quite the opposite.
--Cory
Oh I see Cory has made epic post about gameplay stuff. Yay Cory :D
Complexity is a <b>good</b> thing. Complexity lends depth and breadth to the game. This in-turn increases how replayable a game is. The more replayable a game is, the longer it survives. This has been the case for decades and the same concept applies to ANY game: Card games, board games, video games, etc. Do you think Chess should be simplified? If it was, it wouldn't be chess anymore, and if you got carried away with the "process of user-friendliness" it would end up being nothing more than Checkers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chess <i>is</i> simple, it has a quite simple set of rules and premise. All the depth comes from the players. Its depth comes from it being an expression of the human mind, and all its capacity for inventiveness, deception, planning, prediction, and all the other skills that are useful in chess.
It has a variety of pieces which move in different ways, some have a special ability or two, and it has one combat mechanic. It's simpler than most videogames, but it works because the players make it work.
You don't get good gameplay from having excessive complexity, you get it from having emergent depth, which is not the same thing. Emergent depth is when you get something deep from simple components. Poker is another simple game, the overall premise is that you are randomly assigned a hand which may be better or worse than other people's at any one time. All the gameplay comes from whether you are good at bluffing. Even simple games like tetris, fill lines with blocks to get points. The depth comes from the application of the one principle.
Throwing in a million components is a very poor way to get depth, because the complexity gets in the way of the fun, in emergent depth there is no complexity, the game scales with you. As an alien in NS, if you want to add an element like say, misdirection, you can do that simply by trying to. You don't need to know where the misdirection button is and you don't need to ask the commander to drop some misdirection for you except he can't because he ran out of misdirection resources. You can simply use your fade to lead a marine away, then round a corner in a T junction but then teleport backwards down the other path and him to take the path you appeared to take, then whack him from behind. That is a good feature because it takes a simple power, the ability to teleport, and applies it in a new way as a stealth mechanic, while not requring any further input control wise.
Good mechanics are versatile mechanics, make one mechanic do many things, apply it in many ways, that gives you emergent depth, rather than adding a new mechanic for every possible situation. In NS you could for example remove the onos charge ability and simply make impact damage an inherent property of a moving onos. That takes the movement mechanic and expands it to make it also function as an attack mechanic. You could remove E build, the welder, and medpacks, and instead unify all three under a general purpose toolkit given to every marine, pressing E on an unbuilt building or damaged building makes him take out his welder an build/fix it, pressing E on a wounded soldier makes him take out a medpack and stick a needle in the marine to heal him some. Add a universal charge meter to both the welder and the medpack to prevent TF2 medigunning with it, and you simplify the game but keep the depth, instead of having three different mechanics for healing, welding, and building, you have one mechanic that does all three.
Complexity is a <b>good</b> thing. Complexity lends depth and breadth to the game. This in-turn increases how replayable a game is. The more replayable a game is, the longer it survives. This has been the case for decades and the same concept applies to ANY game: Card games, board games, video games, etc. Do you think Chess should be simplified? If it was, it wouldn't be chess anymore, and if you got carried away with the "process of user-friendliness" it would end up being nothing more than Checkers.
There are two problems going on here (for the most part have already been stated in this thread)
1) Not enough Feedback / Help by the game to new(er) players
2) People seem to think simplification of game mechanics is the answer, it's not!
The game's general lack of "Welcome to the world of NS" type content/mechanics is a simple by-product of the current stage of development. These kinds of feature(s) get folded into a game later in development. How are they supposed to provide useful feedback to a player when a feature is incomplete or not finalized? I'm completely confident that UWE is aware of this and has plans to not only make a single or series of in-game tutorials, but also is going to revamp the Tooltips / Feedback mechanics already in game. A simple example that would improve things quite a bit is having a small bit of GUI telling player's the name of the area they are currently in. Hell, the Mini-map isn't even in a finished state yet people! We all know the mini-map will be added for both Marine and Alien players (in some form or another), not just commanders and it's going to evolve (no pun) and get improved. A perfect example of my point is the difference between the Alien Commander GUI from B158 to B159, it's a big improvement in B159.
Now, my point that's probably going to get me flamed (Ahh! FT blindness! =P). Every time the "Simplification Ax" comes out, a portion or chunk of the game is removed. Now, do NOT misunderstand the difference between Refining and Simplification. It is a massive difference between the two. So, if the pseudo powers of simplification were applied to NS2, then the game wouldn't be NS2 anymore. Run through a simple exercise in your mind and begin removing portions of the game that you believe to be overly complicated. Once you start doing that, you have to examine why you leave other portions on the game in place. Depending on how far you go, you'll begin to find that large parts of the game are no longer needed, in any form.
Here is a simple example, let's say we want to making building easier, so the gorge can now build everything. Well, now there isn't much reason for the Alien Commander to exist (yes, that was a over simplification, but it is still a relevant example). The same kind of example can be applied all over the place. Long story short, NS <b>IS</b> a complex game, it always has been and always (hopefully) will be. This is one of its strengths, not its weakness. I think we need to stop jumping to conclusions (grab your Jump to Conclusions mat everybody!) and wait for more bug fixes, features, and polish to be implemented before we can start saying the kinds of things in this thread. In many ways, the entire point of this thread is premature seeing how the game isn't close to feature complete and not had any "polish time".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1 co-signed
It has a variety of pieces which move in different ways, some have a special ability or two, and it has one combat mechanic. It's simpler than most videogames, but it works because the players make it work.
You don't get good gameplay from having excessive complexity, you get it from having emergent depth, which is not the same thing. Emergent depth is when you get something deep from simple components. Poker is another simple game, the overall premise is that you are randomly assigned a hand which may be better or worse than other people's at any one time. All the gameplay comes from whether you are good at bluffing. Even simple games like tetris, fill lines with blocks to get points. The depth comes from the application of the one principle.
Throwing in a million components is a very poor way to get depth, because the complexity gets in the way of the fun, in emergent depth there is no complexity, the game scales with you. As an alien in NS, if you want to add an element like say, misdirection, you can do that simply by trying to. You don't need to know where the misdirection button is and you don't need to ask the commander to drop some misdirection for you except he can't because he ran out of misdirection resources. You can simply use your fade to lead a marine away, then round a corner in a T junction but then teleport backwards down the other path and him to take the path you appeared to take, then whack him from behind. That is a good feature because it takes a simple power, the ability to teleport, and applies it in a new way as a stealth mechanic, while not requring any further input control wise.
Good mechanics are versatile mechanics, make one mechanic do many things, apply it in many ways, that gives you emergent depth, rather than adding a new mechanic for every possible situation. In NS you could for example remove the onos charge ability and simply make impact damage an inherent property of a moving onos. That takes the movement mechanic and expands it to make it also function as an attack mechanic. You could remove E build, the welder, and medpacks, and instead unify all three under a general purpose toolkit given to every marine, pressing E on an unbuilt building or damaged building makes him take out his welder an build/fix it, pressing E on a wounded soldier makes him take out a medpack and stick a needle in the marine to heal him some. Add a universal charge meter to both the welder and the medpack to prevent TF2 medigunning with it, and you simplify the game but keep the depth, instead of having three different mechanics for healing, welding, and building, you have one mechanic that does all three.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
facepalm...
The situation: Fast-forward some months from now. The feature set might be looking pretty darn complete. Crashes are down, framerate is up, and everything is all double rainbows on the Big Rock Candy Mountain. It's good to report bugs, but idiotic to cry about them. It'll all get fixed. However, I think some design decisions being made right now could have some unintended consequences later.
The uncomfortable truth: Many gamers are intimidated by NS2. I assume this is bad. Maybe you don't want to make compromises and only want to make the game you always wanted to make for you and like-minded people. That would be both awesome and valid, but if that is the case then I can offer no useful suggestions.
If you *do* want to attract more people, here's why I think they are intimidated (many I've heard from people I know who refused to play NS1 more than a day) and how I think this can be addressed:
<b>Domain knowledge required to play a single game is staggering.</b>
<ul><li> Problem: Map navigation, chokepoints, buildings, tech trees, team status, in-game conventions, etc... and you still have to be a decent shot.</li><li> Sucks because: Few people want to feel like they have to study just to play a game.</li><li> Hardcore people love it because: Predetermined advantages are what competitive people thrive on.</li><li> Potential solutions: Extremely deep tutorials, raidframe-style popups ("you're standing in the fire") that are suppressed once you demonstrate that you get it (like L4D), more feedback about game/player/team state and what player can do to correct negative behaviors and repeat positive ones</li></ul>
<b>Maps are confusing and one hallway looks the same as the next.</b>
<ul><li> Problem: Right now, the maps look like these big generic collection of sci-fi corridors. Best way to figure out where you are is to type something in chat. Even then, it's highly likely that the name of your current location is some abstract concept ("Access Tunnel") that provides no helpful context. How far am I away from home? How far to the enemy base? Is the room next door relatively safer or not? Makes awesome screenshots, but it's tough to construct a mental picture in your head about without playing one for 2+ hours.</li><li> Sucks because: New players shouldn't have to pull up their minimap (which I assume will exist in final). They're excited but held back by a) getting yelled at for wandering off and b) not knowing where to go when someone says WEST! OMG IT'S GOING DOWN. NOW, DAMMIT.</li><li> Hardcore people love it because: Predetermined advantages are what competitive people thrive on.</li><li> Potential solution: Compasses, minimaps (as a fallback), signposts everywhere (TF2), waypoints that can trace through the centers of the intermediate rooms (GPS-style), ability for players to set their own waypoints on minimap, Crazy Taxi "smart" heading arrow. BIG lights around pathable doors and vents. (Fun fact: most marines don't know there's a 3rd exit out of marine start in tram because your doors don't look walkable.)</li></ul>
<b>Dying with no feedback is frustrating.</b>
<ul><li> Problem: Hey, I think I see someth.... splat.</li><li> Sucks because: It's really hard to figure out what you did wrong whe... splat.</li><li> Hardcore people love it because: I'm not sure anyone likes this besides people who are playing with the currently-hilarious lerk alt-fire down long hallways.</li><li> Potential solution: Deathcam, 5-second instant replay, reminders about the weapon that killed you ("protip: flames will blind you for 2.5 seconds and do x dmg per second with a y/sec dot. At full blast, your fade will last 4.7 seconds with current armor.")</li></ul>
<b>Buildings are confusing and do not reflect purpose or importance well.</b>
<ul><li> Problem: Do the spores coming out of that reef rock hurt me like the gas? Which way is this turret pointed? How do I get a different gun? What's this big grey box in the middle of base?</li><li> Sucks because: You would never think life or death -- especially as a marine -- comes down to the little metal disc on the ground that just got eaten by a skulk.</li><li> Hardcore people love it because: "Well, you should've learned the game/read the manual/studied the playguide/hung out in the forum/etc."</li><li> Potential solutions: Art is expensive. I understand if that's not changing. Maybe lose the subtlety and make open res nodes produce more smoke and glow, create video demos that can be played in-game of what each structure does (think SC2), L4D-style white outlines + tooltips over things you can interact with in the world. Built, unbuilt, and damaged states wouldn't hurt either. Alien buildings do a pretty good job of expressing function via silhouette, but marine buildings? In an ideal world, com chairs would have glass windows so you can see a guy sits inside it, armories would have gun racks mounted on the outside, etc.</li></ul>
<b>Commander is impossible to practice.</b>
<ul><li> Problem: People who want to really see what this RTS/FPS thing is about don't really have a way to do so.</li><li> Potential solutions: Better UI (I'm sure you're working on it) that emphasizes decision-making over physical dexterity. Think MMO healer or tank. They manage situations, not firearms. I have some ideas for this which I may post later. Create an environment that allows the com to do really great things, rather than just avoid doing stupid things or running errands on a schedule (re: the sadly stuck-in-1998 SC2 design).</li></ul>
Overall: <b>Simplify.</b> Insert your favorite quote here about perfection being simply the minimal viable good idea. It looks fantastic right now, guys. Now to just get more people to give it a chance to show them how much fun it can be....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QQ ... ;;
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s</a>
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
QQ MIMIIIMIIII <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpcUxwpOQ_A" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpcUxwpOQ_A</a>
You don't get good gameplay from having excessive complexity, you get it from having emergent depth, which is not the same thing. Emergent depth is when you get something deep from simple components. Poker is another simple game, the overall premise is that you are randomly assigned a hand which may be better or worse than other people's at any one time. All the gameplay comes from whether you are good at bluffing. Even simple games like tetris, fill lines with blocks to get points. The depth comes from the application of the one principle.
does all three.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Imagery depth would be more approriate term, if you bring up tetris or poker. They are not deep like chess or Go (most complex and popular board game) which require actual experience and thinking to achieve actual skill.
You bring up chess as a simple game just because you are familiar with the rules but unlike in one round of poker chances of you beating someone with great experience are much slimmer. Most singleplayers use this kind of "trick" if I may to fool player into thinking he is acting wisely by lets say taking cover behind boxes in random FPS shooter and then blatantly adding them along the game.
True depth comes from actual amount of choices that do effect positively or negatively and force your opponent to react or face unfair situation he is put into.
<!--quoteo(post=1816557:date=Dec 16 2010, 11:46 PM:name=derWalter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (derWalter @ Dec 16 2010, 11:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816557"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->QQ ... ;;
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s</a>
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
QQ MIMIIIMIIII <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpcUxwpOQ_A" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpcUxwpOQ_A</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
talking paperclip
talking paperclip<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is a good idea
devs, remodel the com chair into a paper clip that talks :D
Compared to the original chess the (european) chess you know looks like checkers. A four player game in the beginning it has been stripped down so many times over the last centuries until the last 'large' patch in ~1500 a.d.
You bring up chess as a simple game just because you are familiar with the rules but unlike in one round of poker chances of you beating someone with great experience are much slimmer. Most singleplayers use this kind of "trick" if I may to fool player into thinking he is acting wisely by lets say taking cover behind boxes in random FPS shooter and then blatantly adding them along the game.
True depth comes from actual amount of choices that do effect positively or negatively and force your opponent to react or face unfair situation he is put into.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes tetris is less complex than chess and it is less deep, there is a limit to how much you can expand one mechanic to create gameplay. At some point you do have to add more mechanics to get more depth, but if you do it properly you shouldn't need to add many, because going from one to two mechanics for your game should quadruple the amount of emergent depth you get. IF, they are good mechanics.
If they are bad mechanics that are extremely situatonal and not useable in other areas, then your complexity and useability will suffer, and you won't get much fun out of it. Depth does indeed come from stuff you can do in the game, but you can either create it the stupid way, by adding millions of mechanics that are hard to understand, or you can add a few good ones that interact well and cover a wide area of the game, and get something which is extremely easy to pick up, but which has a lot of stuff in it.
Its always been important for us to make NS2 much more understandable and accessible to new players then NS1 was, without sacrificing a robust set of features that leads to depth of gameplay. Understandably its a pretty tall order. Many of the biggest issues causing confusion to new players we've known about for quite some time, and we have either not had the time to address yet, are in the process of dealing with, or we are still mulling over a variety of options of how best to deal with it.
Areas like the commander UI is already getting an overhaul, minimaps are being reworked and added, the names of the resources are being changed to be clearer and better implemented so that the player can see and understand them more easily, tooltips will likely get more attention once more of the features are final, and maps will continue to be improved where necessary with lighting, signs, etc. to help get around more easily. We've got some other ideas we've been discussing lately that we are going to try out, as well.
It is still always helpful to hear about experiences that new players are having, as some things that may seem perfectly clear and obvious to us, can actually be quite the opposite.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cory, I have a suggestion w.r.t. making resources more understandable - changing up the color schemes. Green is too similar to blue since the only visual indication between them in the commander UI is a small circle, with an indistinguishable graphic (unless you look closely). I'd change that to be something with more contrast - yellow/orange and blue, for example.
Green and blue are quite distinct to me, whereas green and yellow are the same colour.
Generally you'd be better off making different shapes rather than relying entirely on colour.
Its always been important for us to make NS2 much more understandable and accessible to new players then NS1 was, without sacrificing a robust set of features that leads to depth of gameplay. Understandably its a pretty tall order. Many of the biggest issues causing confusion to new players we've known about for quite some time, and we have either not had the time to address yet, are in the process of dealing with, or we are still mulling over a variety of options of how best to deal with it.
Areas like the commander UI is already getting an overhaul, minimaps are being reworked and added, the names of the resources are being changed to be clearer and better implemented so that the player can see and understand them more easily, tooltips will likely get more attention once more of the features are final, and maps will continue to be improved where necessary with lighting, signs, etc. to help get around more easily. We've got some other ideas we've been discussing lately that we are going to try out, as well.
It is still always helpful to hear about experiences that new players are having, as some things that may seem perfectly clear and obvious to us, can actually be quite the opposite.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aren't those issues something that should have pre-planned and written in to your design as a core element, started from the outset and not incrementally changed?
Sounds like an awful lot of re-working and change from the current game model.