[MUD-Dev] trade skill idea

[Josh Olson]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Koster, Raph" <rkoster at verant.com>
> Well, in RollerCoaster Tycoon, the guy who designs the rollercoaster IS
the
> guy who sets the prices at the snack stand and also the guy who manages
the
> entire park. Games often mess with realistic scope in the name of fun. :)

No, they gloss over the details of each sub-scope.  Suppose you could break
RCT into two levels of real-world job: park manager, and um... carnie.
Could you, without adding anything, break those two aspects of RCT into
separate games that were still fun?  I'm guessing not - which means that
independently, the two scopes are not sufficiently detailed to stand on
their own.  Therefore the overall scope of the game is appropriate.

> > You can either have a game about baking bread, or you can
> > have a game about
> > managing bakeries - you can't have it both ways and maintain
> > an interesting
> > level of complexity in both aspects.
>
> Sure you can. IMHO.

Well, OK - we disagree.  I can think of plenty of counterexamples, though,
of games that tried to encompass a broader scope than they should have and
ended up with tedium.  Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri stands out in my mind.  I
can also think of cross-scope games that succeeded by omitting the finer
details of the sub-scopes they encompassed.

> > The more detailed the simulation, the
> > tighter your scope must be.  Corollary: the broader your
> > scope, the more details must be glossed over.
>
> Details have nothing to do with fun; the rate and quantity of important
> chocies does.

I didn't mention fun.  I'm just talking about attention span and
decision-making, to which detail and complexity are closely linked.

> And I am pretty sure that you could abstract both making of
> bread and managing a bakery into a set of say, 10 important variables
total
> to consider and come up with an interesting game. :)

Yes!  This is what I'm saying.  In order to make that large scope viable,
you have to abstract some of it.  See also: "gloss over"  :)

The origin of this discussion involved making trade skills as complex (or
nearly so) as are IRL.  My assertion is that there has to be significant
abstraction in order to fit trade skills into the scope of a larger game
that is not based on that skill.  If somebody wants to make BakerQuest,
fine - I'll even play it.  But concessions have to be made to trade skills
in the scope of a large-scale MMORPG.

The concise version: There is such a thing as too much detail.

> > I'd argue that the painting and skinning would not be so attractive if
the
> > underlying game didn't have a lot of merit in the first place.  If I
just
> > wanted to play SimDressup, I'd buy a Barbie game.
>
> I bet that half this list could write a bot to maximize the Sims' fairly
> simple variable management in less than a day or two. It's NOT a complex
> game, and in fact, every gamer I know (as opposed to non-gamers who tride
> it) found the game aspcet of it laughably simplistic. Even non-gamers
(with
> whom the title appears to have more staying power) focus more on the story
> creation aspects of it than the resource management. I suspect that if The
> Sims had been done with uh, oil wells (or baking!) that it would NOT have
> done very well.

Well, I think we can agree that The Sims has a certain 'je ne sais quoi'
about it, simplistic or not.  That even without skinning, it would be an
involving activity.  "Merit" doesn't necessarily mean cool graphics or
advanced AI.

There are games that let you customize and skin 'til your heart's content,
but as games aren't worth a damn and so do not have the same following that
The Sims does.

> > > I'll say it again: I believe that a game about doing nothing more than
> > > interior decorating has a bigger potential audience than a game about
> going
> > > on a grand adventure and saving the day.
> >
> > Perhaps, but I don't think it would capture interest for as long.
Marking
> > your environment and displaying your originality is much more appealing
an
> > an already-interesting context.
>
> Pretty big presupposition there--to have an interesting context, you have
to
> include a grand adventure? Sorry, but to that I say pfft. :)

Well pfft to you too.  :)  I was actually just referring to the interior
decorating bit of your statement.  I think you have to have *something*
interesting going on in order for the territory-marking aspect to be of any
value.  A game consisting of nothing at all but adorning one's environment
wouldn't do well, I think.

-Josh Olson






_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev