4 ms·

Computational, and also how much does it add to the 'fun' in the gameplay? City builders aren't about modeling how real cities work, they're about providing a f

by roel_v 11y ago

Computational, and also how much does it add to the 'fun' in the gameplay? City builders aren't about modeling how real cities work, they're about providing a fun gameplay experience. Which is fine, but orthogonal to the question of whether modeling agents in the way mentioned is the 'best' way to model a urban system (to which the answer is a solid 'maybe sometimes', but that's a different discussion...)

TeMPOraL 11y ago
It's my personal opinion, but I find optimizing games for fun directly makes them very shallow. In case of a sim game, I'd much prefer it to be hard due to an accurate simulation, than simplified to improve enjoyment. The former can actually teach you something, and you can also apply real-world knowledge to improve your chances. But then again, I'm a weird player who likes things like Dwarf Fortress and considers Kerbal Space Program to be the best space game ever made.
- gedrap 11y ago
  I think it's largely a business decision. You need to find a balance between really heard and appealing to more niche audience (resulting in a relatively high game price). Some games like KSP went fairly mainstream, but they did a ton of work to be appealing to a wider audience, not only space enthusiasts. At the other end of the spectrum, you have easy games which appeal to larger, more casual audiences but like you've said are a bit shallow. In this regard, C:S hits a good balance.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I've been hearing nothing but praise about C:S (and I've seen some fun videos of abusing dams and hydroelectric plants to create tsunami waves); I'm definitely going to buy it.
- roel_v 11y ago
  Of course, 'fun' means whatever stimulates your target audience most and longest. Which is orthogonal to my point that games are or should be about mimicking reality (because let's face it, otherwise nobody would have ever made it through the first room in Doom).
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    The problem of today's games is that the target audience is "everyone who can pay", which naturally leads to very shallow experience, designed for the lowest common denominator.

by roel_v 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

It's my personal opinion, but I find optimizing games for fun directly makes them very shallow. In case of a sim game, I'd much prefer it to be hard due to an accurate simulation, than simplified to improve enjoyment. The former can actually teach you something, and you can also apply real-world knowledge to improve your chances. But then again, I'm a weird player who likes things like Dwarf Fortress and considers Kerbal Space Program to be the best space game ever made.

gedrap 11y ago
I think it's largely a business decision. You need to find a balance between really heard and appealing to more niche audience (resulting in a relatively high game price). Some games like KSP went fairly mainstream, but they did a ton of work to be appealing to a wider audience, not only space enthusiasts. At the other end of the spectrum, you have easy games which appeal to larger, more casual audiences but like you've said are a bit shallow. In this regard, C:S hits a good balance.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I've been hearing nothing but praise about C:S (and I've seen some fun videos of abusing dams and hydroelectric plants to create tsunami waves); I'm definitely going to buy it.
roel_v 11y ago
Of course, 'fun' means whatever stimulates your target audience most and longest. Which is orthogonal to my point that games are or should be about mimicking reality (because let's face it, otherwise nobody would have ever made it through the first room in Doom).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The problem of today's games is that the target audience is "everyone who can pay", which naturally leads to very shallow experience, designed for the lowest common denominator.