MarkShot wrote:(1) Which of AGEOD's games has greatest replay value? Why?
(2) Which of AGEOD's games has the most satisfying game play? Why?
(3) Which of AGEOD's games is the most intuitive to learn? Why?
(4) Which of AGEOD's game broke the most new ground? Why?
(5) Seeing the evolution from BOA through WIA, are you happy with the direction which has been taken in evolving the AGE game engine? Why?
(6) It is part of AGEOD's business strategy that each new game not only refines existing features, but essentially adds new modules (completely expanded scope) to the engine's capabilities. Putting aside periods and theaters, how would you like to see AGE evolve in the future?
(7) AGE was initially born as primarily a grand scale warfare engine. The evolution has been to go beyond warfare into many other realms. Where do your interests primarily lie? Is it with warfare? Is it with the challenges of national growth, leadership, and the international stage (with warfare as just a singe option)? Or is there something else?
(8) For those who have followed AGEOD's growth over the last few years and purchased the full spectrum of games is there anything else which you would like tell us about where we are going that you think we should know?
Gray_Lensman wrote:Do I even need to reply?
richfed wrote:I concur with GlobalExplorer ...
Looking forward to VGN!!
MarkShot wrote:Hobbes,
I thought at some point there were discussions about variable turn lengths or am I confusing this with Panther Games and our discussions of how a real-time system could be turned into a PBEM enable game? Too much brainstorming and too many withering brain cells!
Hobbes wrote:NPC could have been a lot better + I would love to see an ancient game set around the med - but a very different game, maybe a year per turn.
EDIT: Maybe a year per turn doesn't work for games like these but there is always the problem of how to make games spanning a hundred years or more without making it into a monster 1,000+ turn game while still keeping a tactical element.
tc237 wrote:Mark,
You mentioned Battlefront.com's troubles after the release of CM:SF.
That was exactly what I thought of after reading your first post earlier this morning and have been thinking about the future direction for AGEOD throughout the day.
I don't want to see the same thing happen to AGEOD.
It can be very difficult to balance keeping current fans happy and at the same time bring in new players.
AACW, while a great game, can be a bit too much for alot of new players while NCP wasn't enough for the old Grogs.
I love both games equally, the depth of AACW and the instant action of NCP.
In my opinion a balance between AACW and NCP may be the way to go forward.
Make a detailed, Grogy game like AACW but somehow give the player the option to turn off the higher level supply/production elements so that they can play a quick game, like NCP.
But, the on/off process must be very easy and straight forward for new players so that they aren't overwhelmed by a large, complex "Options Screen".
Something like a one click button to switch between Basic and Advanced rules. (the Grogs get all their options screen with Advanced Rules)
I think you nailed it dead on with the list of 5 Risks.
Sometimes trying to completely satisfy the Grogs can be a slippery slope.
IMO as along as AGEOD stays true to the initial vision for the engine and company they will be fine.
Sorry for the disjointed post, hopefully I'll have a more coherent one later.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Not sure if you've seen this Clovis? You might check this thread out: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=136721#post136721
Clovis wrote:NCP weaknesses is to be lacking a Great Campaign. Not because players want only to play it. AGE engine shines when there's a strategic layer. NCP scenarios are just lacking this. The AGE grand operational scale is a little too big to portray purely operational matter; AGE needs operational picture to be crossed with the choice of a strategy to reach the objectives. BOA, WIA and AACW share this feature.
Of course, soem games need to be less complex than others to please all. But A great NCP campaign will just do justice to NCP operational strenght.
Stwa wrote:
BoA original engine is best positioned to make additional games. Theatres/games do not need to represent an entire continent or an entire war.
BoA original engine is best positioned to transition to a tactical level game for representing the campaigns surrounding individual battles of any period maybe even the 20th century.
BoA original engine could produce a pure wargame of military objectives that does not interject economy or politics.
tc237 wrote:IMO, it is only a weakness in hindsight (and only to a sub-set of players) because NCP followed closely after the release of AACW (with it's wonderful grand campaigns and large scenarios).
If NCP was released first it would have been wildly applauded.
Lack of a "grand campaign" can not be a weakness if it was not part of the design in the first place. (sort of like saying lack of real-time is a weakness).
MarkShot wrote:Tony,
Nice to bump into you again. It's been too long since we last chatted.
I do a poor Don Adams impersonation, but would you believe I only cited four risks and not five! You missed it by that much!
Take care.
MarkShot wrote:I agree that you have to keep delivering new features ... the gaming industries analog of "publish or perish". However, problem is how to do that without boxing yourself into a corner?
Now, I think there are a number of strategies to follow:
(1) New features add both complexity and simplicity at the same time. For example with PGs series, the unit count was upped, but at the same time an OOB navigator and unit type filters were introduced. The effect was more complexity offset by an improved UI.
(2) Provide a new feature, but abstract a lot of the minutia so to capture the flavor and the impact without vastly complicating game play. Another PG example, a supply network was introduced that make the control of the road network critical. Yet the push/pull mechanics of supply were highly abstracted so that the player didn't have to worry depots, convoys, and change an operational warfare game into one of logistics.
(3) Layering of new features meaning that all features of the game don't coexist at the same level. This is somewhat the opposite of #2 the abstraction approach. You allow for additional features which introduce fine control, yet they do not coincide at the same level as the core game play. So, grogs are happy for even greater control, yet noobs and casual gamers can practically ignore these new features. This doesn't have to strictly be multi-level. Similar affects can be achieved by providing the player with selectable options, but for the most part intelligently defaulting them so that they can be ignored if the player so choses.
---
I think another true challenge in evolution is the addition of features, but making the end result appear that it was part of the initial plan and everything fits seamlessly. This is as opposed to an ugly hodge podge where things were clearly tacked on at the last minute.
MarkShot wrote:I agree that you have to keep delivering new features ... the gaming industries analog of "publish or perish". However, problem is how to do that without boxing yourself into a corner?
Now, I think there are a number of strategies to follow:
(1) New features add both complexity and simplicity at the same time. For example with PGs series, the unit count was upped, but at the same time an OOB navigator and unit type filters were introduced. The effect was more complexity offset by an improved UI.
(2) Provide a new feature, but abstract a lot of the minutia so to capture the flavor and the impact without vastly complicating game play. Another PG example, a supply network was introduced that make the control of the road network critical. Yet the push/pull mechanics of supply were highly abstracted so that the player didn't have to worry depots, convoys, and change an operational warfare game into one of logistics.
(3) Layering of new features meaning that all features of the game don't coexist at the same level. This is somewhat the opposite of #2 the abstraction approach. You allow for additional features which introduce fine control, yet they do not coincide at the same level as the core game play. So, grogs are happy for even greater control, yet noobs and casual gamers can practically ignore these new features. This doesn't have to strictly be multi-level. Similar affects can be achieved by providing the player with selectable options, but for the most part intelligently defaulting them so that they can be ignored if the player so choses.
Return to “General discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests