I should add that personally, I think the biggest question of all that my article brings up is:
Who would win in a fight to the death: Dolly the Sheep or Slargh the Plague Zombie? My money's on the sheep. Zombies have always sucked, and that's not likely to change any time soon!
Discourses of M&M
-
Dragon Angel
- Peasant
- Posts: 79
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Well, it matter of oppinion, I think.
Give me a sequel that is just "bigger", I would call it "expansion set"
Give me three sequels in a row that just add content, (no new features), the series is dead for me (and for many others)... I realize they are just milking me. If not, tell me, wich one is more popular? MMVI, MMVII or MMVIII - the comments I've hear always tilt to MMVI.
Even RPG sequels (wich, as commented, can do well by adding new lands to explore - a thing that can't do strategy games, btw -- you can't just ship the same game with new campaigns and say it's a new game) add new, important features. BG 2 offered specialist classes, high-level gameplay, and richer interaction between party members. KOTOR 2 offers the influece system, object construction or lightsaber fight forms. In each of the SuperMario sequels you find new, interesting things to play with and to play different (the mapache tail, Yoshi....).
Shift to the strategy genre and you will find that changes are bigger and badder. Why? Because a strategy gamer learns how to play its game, and if the new one does not add a challenge that makes he rethink its strategies, it is just something done. Take Warcraft II: Naval Warfare, Starcraft: Very Different Races: Warcraft III: Heroes; Take Age of Empires II: Castles, Age of Mithology: God Powers and the new Age of Empires III: Home City Developement.
Of course, you can risk your purposed features to be a fiasco (specially if not enough time is devoted to them *cough* Heroes IV *cough*). But, on the other hand, these game changes are what would reinforce your series as an interesting one.
Players are not stupid: Milk them once, they might not notice. Milk them twice, they will start to get angry. Milk them thrice, and you will see the series fanbase drastically reduced.
Give me a sequel that is just "bigger", I would call it "expansion set"
Give me three sequels in a row that just add content, (no new features), the series is dead for me (and for many others)... I realize they are just milking me. If not, tell me, wich one is more popular? MMVI, MMVII or MMVIII - the comments I've hear always tilt to MMVI.
Even RPG sequels (wich, as commented, can do well by adding new lands to explore - a thing that can't do strategy games, btw -- you can't just ship the same game with new campaigns and say it's a new game) add new, important features. BG 2 offered specialist classes, high-level gameplay, and richer interaction between party members. KOTOR 2 offers the influece system, object construction or lightsaber fight forms. In each of the SuperMario sequels you find new, interesting things to play with and to play different (the mapache tail, Yoshi....).
Shift to the strategy genre and you will find that changes are bigger and badder. Why? Because a strategy gamer learns how to play its game, and if the new one does not add a challenge that makes he rethink its strategies, it is just something done. Take Warcraft II: Naval Warfare, Starcraft: Very Different Races: Warcraft III: Heroes; Take Age of Empires II: Castles, Age of Mithology: God Powers and the new Age of Empires III: Home City Developement.
Of course, you can risk your purposed features to be a fiasco (specially if not enough time is devoted to them *cough* Heroes IV *cough*). But, on the other hand, these game changes are what would reinforce your series as an interesting one.
Players are not stupid: Milk them once, they might not notice. Milk them twice, they will start to get angry. Milk them thrice, and you will see the series fanbase drastically reduced.
Don't be fooled by the title -- Dragons can disguise as peasants, too
Based on what limited information I have I think UBI is making the right business decision, but one which I personally am not 100% happy with. Yes, they should attempt to attract more new people to the franchise. The fans alone cannot sustain it. Especially the minority that the H4 fans are in (by my estimates). But, yes, I like what I see so far and I'll still buy the game and try it for myself with no prejudice (I personally won't go hungry if I waste 40 dollars), but I do wish they were at least slightly more adventurous with new features.
In the end, the raw mechanics: the AI, the balance, the "feel", the "one more turn" addiction, the multi, etc... will determine the success to me... What HOMM it is based on or is a clone of, is, frankly, irrelevant to me. I, personally, need to play the game, philosophical ruminations on what constitutes a sequel, a clone, or a revolution (no offence meant to the discussion, do carry on) don't do a thing to my approach to this game... and just how much salt they need to add to an old good soup recipe? Hey as long as it tastes good... Now I'm really excited about the necro faction line-up (I hope they can balance those liches and skeleton archers), but I don't care for their 'new Might and Magic universe' and plan to play it as a purely strategy game
In the end, the raw mechanics: the AI, the balance, the "feel", the "one more turn" addiction, the multi, etc... will determine the success to me... What HOMM it is based on or is a clone of, is, frankly, irrelevant to me. I, personally, need to play the game, philosophical ruminations on what constitutes a sequel, a clone, or a revolution (no offence meant to the discussion, do carry on) don't do a thing to my approach to this game... and just how much salt they need to add to an old good soup recipe? Hey as long as it tastes good... Now I'm really excited about the necro faction line-up (I hope they can balance those liches and skeleton archers), but I don't care for their 'new Might and Magic universe' and plan to play it as a purely strategy game
I see I came in late and most of the good points have already been raised and thrashed out.
One comment I can make, however, is that generations of a game's engine should be distinguished from the numbering on the box. Each generation can drive multiple editions (or boxfulls) and engines can be expected to evolve to take advantage of new platform technology. The product plan for a new or substantially upgraded engine would balance development costs against prospective sales. It is altogether possible that the development costs will not be recovered in the first product release. The lower cost of producing followups and supplements can make them much more profitable. Numbering is just marketing.
The point of this is that Heroes V is a welcome upgrade to the engine, which may well support several product releases, whether they are called expansions or Heroes VI. VII, etc. These will not so much be 'clones' as components of a product plan with multiple releases. E.g. Xeen or Ultima VII.
While I've got you here, let me state my position on Heroes III and IV. I love them both, just like I love Heroes and Heroes II. I accept each for what it offers. And I think it is because I did not expect Heroes IV to be an enhanced version of Heroes III that I avoided the disappointment that some people felt. Both have flaws and good points. The reason I have been concentrating on Heroes IV is that I felt I had gotten just about everything Heroes III had to offer. I was so initimately familiar with the game's mechanics that there were no surprises, no new strategies to formulate, and not many new maps to play. And so I moved on. And I'm about to the same point with Heroes IV, so I am eager to see Heroes V and couldn't care less whether it is more like Heroes III or Heroes IV.
One comment I can make, however, is that generations of a game's engine should be distinguished from the numbering on the box. Each generation can drive multiple editions (or boxfulls) and engines can be expected to evolve to take advantage of new platform technology. The product plan for a new or substantially upgraded engine would balance development costs against prospective sales. It is altogether possible that the development costs will not be recovered in the first product release. The lower cost of producing followups and supplements can make them much more profitable. Numbering is just marketing.
The point of this is that Heroes V is a welcome upgrade to the engine, which may well support several product releases, whether they are called expansions or Heroes VI. VII, etc. These will not so much be 'clones' as components of a product plan with multiple releases. E.g. Xeen or Ultima VII.
While I've got you here, let me state my position on Heroes III and IV. I love them both, just like I love Heroes and Heroes II. I accept each for what it offers. And I think it is because I did not expect Heroes IV to be an enhanced version of Heroes III that I avoided the disappointment that some people felt. Both have flaws and good points. The reason I have been concentrating on Heroes IV is that I felt I had gotten just about everything Heroes III had to offer. I was so initimately familiar with the game's mechanics that there were no surprises, no new strategies to formulate, and not many new maps to play. And so I moved on. And I'm about to the same point with Heroes IV, so I am eager to see Heroes V and couldn't care less whether it is more like Heroes III or Heroes IV.
Before you criticize someone, first walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you'll be a mile away. And you'll have their shoes.
Good points, Charles. I think that if you view H4 as a entirely different game and don't compare it to any of the previous games but simply judge it on how much fun as a different game it is to play, that's a good way of experiencing it. And due to the number of new ideas and changes, in many ways it IS a different game, even though it happens to be remarkably similar to the Heroes (I-III) games in some respects. Now I would say that many people would still come to the conclusion that game a (Heroes 3) is more fun for them to play than game b (Heroes 4) but obviously there are many H4 fans too, even if the overall number is smaller. Just as there are probably many people who would consider Heroes III *or* Heroes IV to be more fun to play than Age of Wonders II, but again, there are fans of both games.
So perhaps we should all be just saying that H5 will be a *New Game* that will be remarkably similar in certain details to some of those Heroes games (and even shares the same title) but it should be judged on its own merits as to how fun it is rather than being compared feature-by-feature.
Anyway, all that aside, if you're getting tired of H4 and you were already tired of H3, why not give WoG a try. Sure it's still H3 in general but the new stuff and scripting possibilties in WoG allow for even more madness than those in H4 so I can't see you getting bored too fast at all.
So perhaps we should all be just saying that H5 will be a *New Game* that will be remarkably similar in certain details to some of those Heroes games (and even shares the same title) but it should be judged on its own merits as to how fun it is rather than being compared feature-by-feature.
Anyway, all that aside, if you're getting tired of H4 and you were already tired of H3, why not give WoG a try. Sure it's still H3 in general but the new stuff and scripting possibilties in WoG allow for even more madness than those in H4 so I can't see you getting bored too fast at all.
- Fnord
Fnord, I had been resisting WOG until I could finish my Heroes IV map. (See, Corribus, I don't miss an opportunity to plug my stuff either: LOST CRUSADE can be downloaded from either CH or Maphaven. ) This took longer than I had planned, because I kept wanting to add new things. Everytime I started to fix bugs. I threw in more features, which of course had bugs of their own.
Now I'm going to move over to WOGville till Heroes V comes out. See yo there. -Charley
Now I'm going to move over to WOGville till Heroes V comes out. See yo there. -Charley
Before you criticize someone, first walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you'll be a mile away. And you'll have their shoes.
Charles, I forgot to say that I can definitely identify with the "more features=more bugs" etc. situation. And that happens to an even greater extent when we're doing new WoG updates because we have a whole bunch of different people writing new WoGify scripts that need to interact properly together (as well as not stepping on the variables etc. of each other) along with new additions and changes from Slava too. It can get pretty crazy at times.
- Fnord
Once again, you bring up many excellent points about the nature of the business of computer games. Very interesting indeed. However, despite what you suggest about the hardcore fans, it seems that the hardcore fans are having a considerable influence on the development of Heroes 5--either that or Ubisoft is doing an excellent job of pretending that fan input matters.
- Fnord
-
Psychobabble
- Spectre
- Posts: 706
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
I agree with most of what you say, especially about the over-vocal and over-possessive hardcore crowd. I disagree about your point with regard to consumer sovereignty though ("I'd argue that the blame goes to the consumers. Companies just cater to what consumers want. If companies put out bland products, and people buy them, it's not the companies' fault, is it?"). I hope I don't get too technical here, but computer games and items like it are textbook areas of market failure cause by imperfect information.
Entertainment products are classic examples of "experience goods" - the consumer only knows how good the product is after they have already bought/consumed it. Think movies, books, restaurant meals. Information flows through reviews and word of mouth are always imperfect due to different individual tastes and a lack of penetration. This market is easily manipulated by marketing techniques which sell a product to perceptions, not to quality. Thus consumers end up with consisently disappointing, bland & franchised products, not because it is their fault but because that is how games (movies etc.) sell.
In fact, I'd go further and say games can even be giffen goods, to some people - people might not even know how much they enjoyed them after they have bought and consumed them. Games can be psychologically addictive (at least for a short time) and this creates cognitive dissonance. If I have just spent 20 hours playing a bad game then I have strong psychological pressure to convince myself that I enjoyed it (this is cognitive dissonance).
These factors combine mean that there is a responsibility for game and movie devlopers to try and push their audience and give them what they really do want, not what will sell easier.
Entertainment products are classic examples of "experience goods" - the consumer only knows how good the product is after they have already bought/consumed it. Think movies, books, restaurant meals. Information flows through reviews and word of mouth are always imperfect due to different individual tastes and a lack of penetration. This market is easily manipulated by marketing techniques which sell a product to perceptions, not to quality. Thus consumers end up with consisently disappointing, bland & franchised products, not because it is their fault but because that is how games (movies etc.) sell.
In fact, I'd go further and say games can even be giffen goods, to some people - people might not even know how much they enjoyed them after they have bought and consumed them. Games can be psychologically addictive (at least for a short time) and this creates cognitive dissonance. If I have just spent 20 hours playing a bad game then I have strong psychological pressure to convince myself that I enjoyed it (this is cognitive dissonance).
These factors combine mean that there is a responsibility for game and movie devlopers to try and push their audience and give them what they really do want, not what will sell easier.
Interesting reading ;-)
However and despite I mostly agree with the core reasoning (sequels should be evolutionary and retain key gameplay features which are truly identified as part of the game) I have to respectfully disagree with the conclusion.
First, is not the same thing to develop a second part (or even a third) than to develop a fifth part of a series. For the second part the designers have it very easy. They just need to fix the gameplay errors from the first part (or just the ones fans disliked most), and expand the scope (add some new faction, new creatures and items), and do some minor technical improving like graphics. They don't even need to add anything new if they don't want to. Examples: Thousands of them: Civilization, Age of Wonders, Disciples, Ufo, Hearts of Iron, Warcraft, Age of Empires, and almost any video game in the market that got a sequel can be mentioned as samples.
But after several installments the need of the series to evolve becomes more important and urgent. People (at least me) start to become tired of buying again and again the same game. The situation is even worst in games which enjoy the existence of expansion packs for them, which nowadays are most of the major ones, and even many of the minors. And in my humble opinion this is the situation for Heroes of Might and Magic. As much as I love Heroes III, I cannot stand another iteration of the same formula if they don't change it enough. And for what it seems (I hope that the reality proves me wrong) the only new thing in Heroes V seems to be the 3D engine (which probably isn't new at all, but just an improved version of the Etherlords engine).
What really caused alarm in me was to read that they are so faithful to Heroes III that they are mirroring even the broken parts of it, like the infamous heroes chains. That is why I started calling it Heroes III-3D.
The other thing that raised the alarm was to learn that they are geting rid of one of the core elements of the series (I think we all agree that games need to be faithful to the series spirit) and that the fairy-tale envinronment seems to be gone.
Of course, I don't want to start irrationally yelling that Heroes V will be a bad game or to form a prejudice before playing it, but despite I still keep hopes, I am very skeptical. And I am really wish that time proves me wrong, because that would mean that I would enjoy Heroes III-3D. Sorry... I mean... Heroes V ;-)
However and despite I mostly agree with the core reasoning (sequels should be evolutionary and retain key gameplay features which are truly identified as part of the game) I have to respectfully disagree with the conclusion.
First, is not the same thing to develop a second part (or even a third) than to develop a fifth part of a series. For the second part the designers have it very easy. They just need to fix the gameplay errors from the first part (or just the ones fans disliked most), and expand the scope (add some new faction, new creatures and items), and do some minor technical improving like graphics. They don't even need to add anything new if they don't want to. Examples: Thousands of them: Civilization, Age of Wonders, Disciples, Ufo, Hearts of Iron, Warcraft, Age of Empires, and almost any video game in the market that got a sequel can be mentioned as samples.
But after several installments the need of the series to evolve becomes more important and urgent. People (at least me) start to become tired of buying again and again the same game. The situation is even worst in games which enjoy the existence of expansion packs for them, which nowadays are most of the major ones, and even many of the minors. And in my humble opinion this is the situation for Heroes of Might and Magic. As much as I love Heroes III, I cannot stand another iteration of the same formula if they don't change it enough. And for what it seems (I hope that the reality proves me wrong) the only new thing in Heroes V seems to be the 3D engine (which probably isn't new at all, but just an improved version of the Etherlords engine).
What really caused alarm in me was to read that they are so faithful to Heroes III that they are mirroring even the broken parts of it, like the infamous heroes chains. That is why I started calling it Heroes III-3D.
The other thing that raised the alarm was to learn that they are geting rid of one of the core elements of the series (I think we all agree that games need to be faithful to the series spirit) and that the fairy-tale envinronment seems to be gone.
Of course, I don't want to start irrationally yelling that Heroes V will be a bad game or to form a prejudice before playing it, but despite I still keep hopes, I am very skeptical. And I am really wish that time proves me wrong, because that would mean that I would enjoy Heroes III-3D. Sorry... I mean... Heroes V ;-)
@PB. Your point about "experience goods" is a good one. However, my argument remains is that the consumer is not freed of responsbility just because a company puts out bland material. The Ultimate decision maker with regards to purchasing anything is the purchaser, not the seller, regardless of the "marketing game" played by the seller. It's true that unfortunately you don't know whether a movie is going to be good until you see it. In that way it might be unfair to blame the consumer for purchasing a ticket to see a bland sequel to a decent movie - how did they know? But what about a sequel after that, and the sequel after that? At what point do you throw your hands up in the air and say, "Alright - it's the PEOPLE who are being stupid, here!"
The fact is that almost EVERY movie made these days (or every game or every book) is guarunteed to have a successful sequel made if the original sells AT ALL. And people lap these rehashed products up because they're all basically like sheep. Really - how terribly original can "Bad Boys II" be? But people go to see it. Marketing or not, you KNOW that a sequel is being made simply because the original did well. You KNOW it's not going to be that original. And yet people buy them anyway. And until people stop buying sequels and start demaning new titles, companies will continue to provide them. And there's really nothing wrong with that - but my point is that for consumers to demand drastically new and revolutionary sequels at the same time that they are demonstrating to companies the awesome force that is brand recognition by buying sequels regardless of their "reported" (via reviews or whatever) content - well it's just unfair. Companies aren't going to do it, because it's too much of a risk.
The fact is that almost EVERY movie made these days (or every game or every book) is guarunteed to have a successful sequel made if the original sells AT ALL. And people lap these rehashed products up because they're all basically like sheep. Really - how terribly original can "Bad Boys II" be? But people go to see it. Marketing or not, you KNOW that a sequel is being made simply because the original did well. You KNOW it's not going to be that original. And yet people buy them anyway. And until people stop buying sequels and start demaning new titles, companies will continue to provide them. And there's really nothing wrong with that - but my point is that for consumers to demand drastically new and revolutionary sequels at the same time that they are demonstrating to companies the awesome force that is brand recognition by buying sequels regardless of their "reported" (via reviews or whatever) content - well it's just unfair. Companies aren't going to do it, because it's too much of a risk.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman
@ OliverFA - I completely agree. After so many iterations of a brand name, you need to start taking more risks with it lest you get the reputation of just "milking the system". I basically state this in my article - sometimes taking no risk is a risk - and this is why it DID make sense (IMO) to take risks when making H4. But H5 is a different story. I've tried to set the backdrop with these facts as to why that's the case. I flesh out that argument in the last article, to come soom.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman
Fair enough. Blame it on the faceless crowd that has too much money to waste to care what value they get in return.
I don't think anybody has such a big problem with the game being more H3-like. You don't have to prove that is makes sense from a business (or any other) perspective, it is completely understandable. But this is not a binary distinction!
To take the hero chaining example again, how much effort would it take to fix it? Is there any risk involved? Don't tell me they are afraid of disappointing those hard-core fans who associate anything H4-like with failure. It's your own argument that they are not the decisive factor. But from that infamous Nival interview (even if it is not official, it was still given by a developer, and if Ubi isn't happy with it, it's so much more relevant because it means we got a glimpse of the uncensored truth) one gets the impression that it's not a matter of effort or risk. The "yes
" feels like the developers are making the game the way they like it. Well, they can keep it then, I am not going to pay for their entertainment.
I don't think anybody has such a big problem with the game being more H3-like. You don't have to prove that is makes sense from a business (or any other) perspective, it is completely understandable. But this is not a binary distinction!
To take the hero chaining example again, how much effort would it take to fix it? Is there any risk involved? Don't tell me they are afraid of disappointing those hard-core fans who associate anything H4-like with failure. It's your own argument that they are not the decisive factor. But from that infamous Nival interview (even if it is not official, it was still given by a developer, and if Ubi isn't happy with it, it's so much more relevant because it means we got a glimpse of the uncensored truth) one gets the impression that it's not a matter of effort or risk. The "yes
" feels like the developers are making the game the way they like it. Well, they can keep it then, I am not going to pay for their entertainment.-
Sir Charles
- War Dancer
- Posts: 356
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
- Location: Houston, TX
- Contact:
Concerning Hero Chaining.....just remember one thing. We havn't seen the game yet. We don't know that "chaining" is really back in or not. We don't know if it's been reworked and modified or not. The only time anyone heard anything regarding Hero chaining was the Q&A that Nival put out. They did this WITHOUT the permission of Ubisoft and Fabrice/Ubisoft have been working to negate alot of what was said in that Q&A.
Also, take into account the fact that Ubisoft is indeed listening to the hard-core fans. They've been ranting and raving about having the caravan brought back. Well, after much complaining by the rabid fans, they're rethinking the issue and working out a way to implement it. Who's to say they aren't doing the same thing to Hero Chaining? Or for that matter, who says it was even "really" there in the first place.
People look at the handful of units we've seen, they look at some other minor aspects of the game and they then close their eyes to the rest of the game and begin to look at it as if they had tunnel-vision and they label it an H3 clone. Meh. There are PLENTY of changes. Are there "some" similarities to h3, sure. Are there huge core game-play changes? Who knows. Take a few minutes to step back and remember that we shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. When more information gets released, or after all the various beta-tests are completed, THEN look at the whole game and make your decision. If it IS a mirror image of h3, but it's done so well that the game is simply stunning and phenomenal...will anyone still complain? Probably. *sigh*
Also, take into account the fact that Ubisoft is indeed listening to the hard-core fans. They've been ranting and raving about having the caravan brought back. Well, after much complaining by the rabid fans, they're rethinking the issue and working out a way to implement it. Who's to say they aren't doing the same thing to Hero Chaining? Or for that matter, who says it was even "really" there in the first place.
People look at the handful of units we've seen, they look at some other minor aspects of the game and they then close their eyes to the rest of the game and begin to look at it as if they had tunnel-vision and they label it an H3 clone. Meh. There are PLENTY of changes. Are there "some" similarities to h3, sure. Are there huge core game-play changes? Who knows. Take a few minutes to step back and remember that we shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. When more information gets released, or after all the various beta-tests are completed, THEN look at the whole game and make your decision. If it IS a mirror image of h3, but it's done so well that the game is simply stunning and phenomenal...will anyone still complain? Probably. *sigh*
Calvin: "Weekends don't count unless you spend them doing something completely pointless."
Very interesting discussion. I agree, with regret, with the business case that you make out (note that Costikyan's piece would change that, but he's by temperament a very successful designer for the hardcore trying to change the wider equation). There is also a gaming case for sequels that hasn't been mentioned much: a new engine almost certainly won't work well on first release, but an evolution of a popular existing engine probably will. Yes, the game can get patched till it works well, but if the brand has a shaky reputation, an apparently poor proiduct on launch may get a terrible reputation before it's patched.
This brings us to the importance of modding, though. I loved H3, I liked H4, but I found the standard scenarios a bit disappointing, mainly because the AI is poor - a pretty common summary, I think. But I've been really drawn into H4 by some of the independently-developed maps, notably Wimfrits' celebrated Wind of Thorns - I'm just finishing that, and it's the best HOMM experience I've had.
Now, as you say, a game company is there to make money by selling games, and it doesn't really care what happens after that. It has a limited number of developers and they do their best. But there are many more fans out there who will run with the basic engine and create fascinating scenarios if you let them. They won't charge a cent. Other fans will love their stuff. Just provide a good engine with lots of modifiable parameters, sell the game, count your money, and let the modder-fans make your reputation for you. Ideally, let the AI be modifiable too - responding to parameters set in the scenario (aggressive, defensive, productive, suspicious...) instead of hardcoded.
That's why I'm not actually concerned much about hero-chaining or caravans, but I *am* concerned to hear that there may (I stress "may") be more constraints on, for instant, text generation than in HOMM4. I can't see a good commercial reason to make the life of scenario designers harder.
This brings us to the importance of modding, though. I loved H3, I liked H4, but I found the standard scenarios a bit disappointing, mainly because the AI is poor - a pretty common summary, I think. But I've been really drawn into H4 by some of the independently-developed maps, notably Wimfrits' celebrated Wind of Thorns - I'm just finishing that, and it's the best HOMM experience I've had.
Now, as you say, a game company is there to make money by selling games, and it doesn't really care what happens after that. It has a limited number of developers and they do their best. But there are many more fans out there who will run with the basic engine and create fascinating scenarios if you let them. They won't charge a cent. Other fans will love their stuff. Just provide a good engine with lots of modifiable parameters, sell the game, count your money, and let the modder-fans make your reputation for you. Ideally, let the AI be modifiable too - responding to parameters set in the scenario (aggressive, defensive, productive, suspicious...) instead of hardcoded.
That's why I'm not actually concerned much about hero-chaining or caravans, but I *am* concerned to hear that there may (I stress "may") be more constraints on, for instant, text generation than in HOMM4. I can't see a good commercial reason to make the life of scenario designers harder.
I see that (and also upon rereading what I wrote) that I may have conveyed the impression that game developers don't really care what the Hard-Core fans think. This is not (exactly) what I mean to say.
What I mean when I say that the developer doesn't care about the hard-core fan as much as the hard-core fan thinks they (the developers) should is that hard-core fans only represent a very small portion of the over-all population that will buy the next game and, perhaps more importantly, played the last one in the series. The hard-core fan also tends to be more progressive. They typically want bigger and more revolutionary changes because they've played the oder version so much that they have grown in some cases a little tired of it, or, more accurately, they know the game too well (the potential for new tactical options has become tired).
What they would do well to keep in mind, though, is that the "average" fan hasn't reached that point of saturation yet, and so while it might irritate hard-core fans when sequels are similar to previous games (because they're afraid there's not much new to do with it), for average fans even small changes may already seem huge. Because the game will seem fresh to them regardless.
Not sure if that was coherant or not.... but there it is.
C.
What I mean when I say that the developer doesn't care about the hard-core fan as much as the hard-core fan thinks they (the developers) should is that hard-core fans only represent a very small portion of the over-all population that will buy the next game and, perhaps more importantly, played the last one in the series. The hard-core fan also tends to be more progressive. They typically want bigger and more revolutionary changes because they've played the oder version so much that they have grown in some cases a little tired of it, or, more accurately, they know the game too well (the potential for new tactical options has become tired).
What they would do well to keep in mind, though, is that the "average" fan hasn't reached that point of saturation yet, and so while it might irritate hard-core fans when sequels are similar to previous games (because they're afraid there's not much new to do with it), for average fans even small changes may already seem huge. Because the game will seem fresh to them regardless.
Not sure if that was coherant or not.... but there it is.
C.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman
-
Sir Charles
- War Dancer
- Posts: 356
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
- Location: Houston, TX
- Contact:
Yes, it was very clear. :O)
On a side note. I just finished playing your h3 outpost of progress and tremask the fool. I haven't been able to find part 3. Has it been made yet? And if so, where would I find it? I thoroughly enjoyed the first two. Just curious Tim.
On a side note. I just finished playing your h3 outpost of progress and tremask the fool. I haven't been able to find part 3. Has it been made yet? And if so, where would I find it? I thoroughly enjoyed the first two. Just curious Tim.
Calvin: "Weekends don't count unless you spend them doing something completely pointless."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest