|
but what if putin plays the game... we need to make sure he wouldn't have a good time..
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I think the only way to make a game like that fun is to make that the core mechanic in the game, as explicitly as possible. Isn't this basically Football Manager? The accuracy of a player's skill appraisals depends on your recruiter's own skills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 07:48
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:i genuinely think "putin is losing so the player experience should not be fun" is my favorite loving post in Games history. holy poo poo The player playing Ukraine would be having a lot of fun. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 07:48
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:The fundamental issue is that making decisions based off of bad information in a game entirely about information is just always going to feel bad. *Just make inaccurate military information only happen in deeply corrupt/dysfunctional states, instead of the moment you have any degree of corruption.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 08:30
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Pretty sure Putin feels bad that he is losing a war that he thought was going to be over in 3 days. Are you aware that games are generally designed with the idea that the player should enjoy playing them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 08:39
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Are you aware that games are generally designed with the idea that the player should enjoy playing them? I play Paradox games, so no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 08:50
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Are you aware that games are generally designed with the idea that the player should enjoy playing them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 10:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Please make Victoria III the Elden Ring of grand strategy games. It's cheating if you research prestige tech to increase your standing as Brazil!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 10:26
|
|
|
Vicky 2 is already the Elden Ring of strategy games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 10:38
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:Vicky 2 is already the Elden Ring of strategy games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 10:59
|
|
|
Victoria 1: instant classic, genre (economy clusterfuck simulation) defining Victoria 2: controversial (where jank? need jank) but in the long run beloved by fans, elevated to greatness only with expansions Victoria 3 then has to have a gently caress ton of callbacks, gorgeous graphics, and a mechanic where the best ally that helped you to get to the endgame is the last bossfight
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 11:46
|
|
|
I know I keep shouting about it in this thread but Suzerain does a fairly good job of making "loving up because you have no idea what the actual consequences of your decisions are" quite fun. I'm not sure if there's any reasonable way to turn that sort of experience into a more freeform GSG though. The fact that the game is essentially a VN about running a country and you can play through the exact same story again to try a different approach is key to making it fun rather than frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 12:49
|
|
|
one could also point to the Franco-Prussian and Russo-Japanese wars in period, but frankly those can be written up to "player error" and hopefully the pressures of the crisis system
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
Nicky II accidentally right clicked while selecting the Baltic Fleet when looking at Port Arthur on the map and that's how the Battle of Tsushima happened
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:one could also point to the Franco-Prussian and Russo-Japanese wars in period, but frankly those can be written up to "player error" and hopefully the pressures of the crisis system Well those are good examples, especially the 2nd, I was thinking of the 1st Sino-Japanese war as the prime example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I know I keep shouting about it in this thread but Suzerain does a fairly good job of making "loving up because you have no idea what the actual consequences of your decisions are" quite fun. It was also mentioned briefly earlier in the thread but Hidden Agenda (1988) is a similar experience that I think a lot of people would enjoy if they could get past its keyboard-based interface and simple graphics. You can play it for free in browser here.    The whole game is controlled with the arrow and enter keys. Basically the only thing you need to know to get started is to go into the contacts icon and choose your four main ministers from the three parties in the Party Dossiers menu. Then you can advance the game and make choices by talking to your advisors from the Consultations icon or talking to representatives of various constituencies from the Encounters icon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Are you aware that games are generally designed with the idea that the player should enjoy playing them? To be fair, "fun" and "engaging" while often overlap don't always do so. Dwarf Fortress, Soulsborne games, some retro strategy games like Emperor of the Fading Suns, the Attilla Rome Total War game; some of the scenarios in Hearts of Iron 2 playing as Germany; some of the levels in Caesar III, etc; probably weren't "fun" but could be hella engaging. I don't think a large swath of paradox players played paradox games on a calculus for "is this game fun?" for a very long time but mostly for the engagement factor until things like Affordances, UX design, game mechanics advanced through constant iteration for the more recent games to be more fun on their own merits and not just relying on things like emergent story telling to hook players in. Charlz Guybon's point isn't to aim for a game that isn't "fun", but is pointing out that sometimes fun is defined by the satisfaction from overcoming a daunting set of challenges (as long as its fair by some metric); and in the context of a grand strategy game like Paradox Games I think many players have an inbaked set of priors where if you don't manage your country well then you probably should lose unless it is against a remarkably worse managed one (or against an opponent who makes a series of critical mistakes they lack the time to recover from) because on some level the game plays to the players understanding of history. Also consider multiplayer and the issues of multiplayer balance and the snowballing effect; in this context you probably want the player's experience instead of constantly getting easier as they accumulate power; but to remain roughly level as they gain territory and power as new complexities in governance and geopolitical and diplomatic possibilities increase/change/appear. So looking at Charlz Guybon's point another way; instead as "at some point Mega-Burgundy deserves to lose" makes perfect sense. Imagine for example a very aggressive player with so-so diplomatic ability who conquers their way to being a great power; typically there should be some sort of cost as a result of administrating these new dominions that erodes the decision making ability of the imperial core. Such as the need to appoint loyalists into positions of influence and power to insure stability and that no ambitious general decides to overthrow the government. If as a result of these choices in the aggregate, your information becomes less accurate, such that you over-estimate your military, and begin to underestimate advarsaries (because after all you are Mega-Burgundy! The greatest empire that ever was or ever has been!); this should increasingly increase the likelyhood of the player making mistakes and going to a war they end up losing which results in a counterbalancing return to equilibrium through the loss of territory; and likewise for the player the oppurtunity to purge their administration of corrupt officials to increase/reassert accuracy. To summarize this example of a gameloop: 1. When you start off suppose you're an innovative Edge Nation with a strong military; you quickly expand. 2. Expansion results in costs that impose onto you an ever increasing array of competing concerns which requires compromises to maintain stability; which erodes the institutions that made your nation able to so quickly expand in the first place. 3. You start to lose wars due to the institutional rot that slowly eroded your strengths. 4. You are then able to fire the corrupt advisors/administrators and fix things. 5. You can start expanding again. Presented this way doesn't seem too different from existing systems in CK/EU just recontextualized. Also the loop presented above isn't an exhaustive overview either; using the Roman Empire as example you had monarchs who could breath new life into an already large and unwieldy empire so you know this can ebb and flow; but there doesn't seem to me anything inherently unfun if recontextualized to be similar to already existing systems, or viewed from a different perspective as just a cost that presents the player new and interesting choices and challenges as a reward in a manner of speaking for doing well. The reward for creating the hegemony of megaburgundy is to now begin the difficult task of preventing its decline, essentially.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Pretty sure Putin feels bad that he is losing a war that he thought was going to be over in 3 days. Nah, that's a dumb way to make a game and you should feel dumb for posting it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
I mean if we are going that route than surely the game should have so much red tape that trying to change your country should be a tedious slog that takes decades. For realism
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:To be fair, "fun" and "engaging" while often overlap don't always do so. Dwarf Fortress, Soulsborne games, some retro strategy games like Emperor of the Fading Suns, the Attilla Rome Total War game; some of the scenarios in Hearts of Iron 2 playing as Germany; some of the levels in Caesar III, etc; probably weren't "fun" but could be hella engaging. lol stopped reading here custom title checks out
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
"Conquest should lead to new challenges to properly realize the fruits of war" is dramatically different than "The game should lie to you about your country, or at the very least provide unhelpful information to make you make bad decisions." By all accounts, Vic3 is at least planning on the first statement, but statement two doesn't fit the design goals of letting players make meaningful, interesting decisions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:"Conquest should lead to new challenges to properly realize the fruits of war" is dramatically different than "The game should lie to you about your country, or at the very least provide unhelpful information to make you make bad decisions." By all accounts, Vic3 is at least planning on the first statement, but statement two doesn't fit the design goals of letting players make meaningful, interesting decisions. Yes and no, my point is mainly that it isn't hard to find the good points underlying the latter there and formulate it into the former. I basically only see it as a difference in presentation, one has maybe more context explicitly laid out and assurances given that it ticks the right "Game Design 101 Seminar" boxes. Conversely a lot of fun mechanics in various games you enjoy probably sound bad if stripped of that presentation. "Tap or hold buttons repeatedly" doesn't sound very fun until you realize that's most shooters. Case in point, "Conquest should lead to new challenges" how? -> "By potentially adding in additional layers of obfuscation as to your nations strengths and weaknesses that subtly taints your decision making even as you make moves to mitigate it." You can't have challenge without the potential for bad decisions to fail those challenges; otherwise it's not a challenge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
Except you'll know that your information is going to be bad. So why would you keep expanding based on information you know will be wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
dark souls is fun though, and the handful of mechanics that arent (ie BB' vial farming) are just bad imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:dark souls is fun though, and the handful of mechanics that arent (ie BB' vial farming) are just bad imo That and yeah you die you die because you suck. So it’s your own fault that you can improve. What he’s describing is more akin to dying because your camera hosed up and no one is happy when that happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:So, I read the last 500 something posts going back to January. In fact unreliable information as a corruption mechanic is actually more unrealistic precisely because an experienced player can account for it. Real corruption, real lack of information, is not something a ruler can just account for and bypass. Raenir Salazar posted:Case in point, "Conquest should lead to new challenges" how? -> "By potentially adding in additional layers of obfuscation as to your nations strengths and weaknesses that subtly taints your decision making even as you make moves to mitigate it." You can't have challenge without the potential for bad decisions to fail those challenges; otherwise it's not a challenge. It's a terrible idea in a grand strategy game for the same reason a shooting mini game or a quick time event would be terrible in a grand strategy game. It's an entirely different kind of challenge that may be immersive in some ways, but is not representative of the issues it's trying to simulate. You can't just trivialize corruption for a skilled player and penalize new players and call that a simulation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:What he’s describing is more akin to dying because your camera hosed up and no one is happy when that happens. this is not a very good analogy having to work with incomplete or unreliable information can be perfectly reasonable as long as you understand that incomplete or imperfect information are part of the terms of the game. to use this camera analogy, it's the difference between "the camera hosed up" and "you have to guess the location of something you can't see". it doesn't seem like something that can or should happen with victoria 3, which already sounds wickedly complicated even with basically perfect information. it might be an interesting challenge for some successor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:22
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:this is not a very good analogy But either the info that is incorrect is so minor it doesn’t matter or it’s so massive it changes the entire landscape, which means your just gambling. You can play around it by just being passive I guess but either way your just gambling
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
I love that Paradox games always attract a small number of people who think 'what if this was less like a fun strategy game and more like working as a data entry clerk in the Ministry of Agriculture'
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
The closer this game is to an excel spreadsheet the better
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
As someone who loves completely obtuse systems and also the feeling you get when you get stabbed by a skeleton jumping out of a blind corner in Elden Ring, I'm sympathetic to the people who want games that deal with the historic challenges of limited information and games that may also be frustratingly difficult. I don't think the official release of Victoria 3 is the best place for that kind of game, but I think if they want to make their own weird MEIOU and Taxes or TNO Toolbox or even Steppe Wolfe-like version of Victoria 3 using mods, I say more power to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Are you aware that games are generally designed with the idea that the player should enjoy playing them? then why did you turn war into two buttons
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:then why did you turn war into two buttons because having wars come down to who can micro their doomstacks better sucked
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
That’s literally what war is
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
The leader of the nation does not usually personally direct each and every division themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
Putin is losing because his micro is bad. Sometimes the player needs to lose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
Its better they take big swings with the warfare mechanics than stick with the same busted old system they've had for how long?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
Putin's problem is that he pressed the Stop button when the army needed him to press the Go button. Now they'll never take Kyiv.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
Nobody told Putin about waiting for movement to lock, rookie stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
this thread has inspired me to go for the hetalia crowd with my new webcomic where world leaders like putin are esports gamers
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:51
|
|