3 ms·

> the thousands of pieces each in their individual positions [..] the entire battlefield is overwhelming what an exaggeration. we had games with that level of

> the thousands of pieces each in their individual positions [..] the entire battlefield is overwhelming what an exaggeration. we had games with that level of complexity a decade ago, even before if you consider the modding scene for total annihilation. edit: -1 for being factual and correct, hn crusaders in a nutshell

simonh 9y ago
The quote you provide isn't exaggerating anything and you're countering a claim of primacy that isn't there. Your whole post is a snarky non-sequitur.
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  how so? total annihilation handled thousand units just fine, both computationally and from an UX point of view, in 3d and with physics to boot parent was specifically talking about computer games: > these would be almost impossible games to really play adequately on a computer you all just skipping an opportunity to learn about gaming history.
  - simonh 9y ago
    The contention isn't that a computer game can't have thousands of units, it's that the thousands of units in that particular game and the ways they are used and interact with each other, terrain etc would be difficult to represent in a game and give a single continuous view of the entire game situation would be hard to do in a computer.
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      and again, there are plentiful games that do it. medieval total war had whole Europe as a map and stacks with dozen thousand units running around, circa 2002, but may not fit your idea of continuous game view. supreme ruler 2010 had worldwide combat, c.a. 2005 or so if I recall it correctly. unit moved continuously and fought by the hundreds, as opposed to medieval total war movement by nation. they all had extremely complex interaction with terrain, including movement speed, hiding, defensive positioning and whatnot. there are plentiful war games that have extremely complex engagement rules, to the point implementing whatever you have in mind is just a matter of putting it in writing. basically the computer isn't the limit. the patience of gamers and market audience is the limit and what prevents extremely complex war games surface on the market (as in: complex in rules). that plus the factor that computer can actually simulate the whole environment and unit interaction physically, so no real need to have to approximate it out with rule lists. on the other hand, if you want to go into the indie space, you'll find plenty game with unbelievable depth, like aurora 4x - that got some serious rule lists, up and including combat readiness for crews and the need to ready them with training maneuvers which happen in space as the game actually goes.
      - simonh 9y ago
        Could you look at a single view in that game and see simultaneously every unit and element is in the game and their attributes? I know the answer is no. I know you know the answer is no. We both know this was the contention that was being made. It wasn't that computers cant handle complex games, or that they can't dusplay lots of complex information, it was just that they can't show all of that all at the the same time in one view. That's all. Why are you doing this?
        LoSboccacc 9y ago
        That’s not the original contention. Beside, you’re not doing that either in the boardgame. You either see it as a whole or focus on some detail. Even if you try to see it all, the brain can focus only on one aspect at a time - the overview or the detail. Believing you can see both is disingenuous on how brain work. Sure all the paper may be laid out for you to see, but to read any stat you’d need to focus on a single element. Not unlike zooming in computers. The fact is, computers are great to present multilevel information and hide complexity on demand while allowing user to explore and discover details, while maintaining track of all the constraints of the game world. Of course if you postulate that picking a paper and see the detail is unlike zooming in and out on a game then you can claim the point to stand, but that’s basically so controved and poignant just to pretend computer can’t do what paper does that’s weird to even to have to debate it.

simonh 9y ago

The quote you provide isn't exaggerating anything and you're countering a claim of primacy that isn't there. Your whole post is a snarky non-sequitur.

LoSboccacc 9y ago
how so? total annihilation handled thousand units just fine, both computationally and from an UX point of view, in 3d and with physics to boot parent was specifically talking about computer games: > these would be almost impossible games to really play adequately on a computer you all just skipping an opportunity to learn about gaming history.
- simonh 9y ago
  The contention isn't that a computer game can't have thousands of units, it's that the thousands of units in that particular game and the ways they are used and interact with each other, terrain etc would be difficult to represent in a game and give a single continuous view of the entire game situation would be hard to do in a computer.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    and again, there are plentiful games that do it. medieval total war had whole Europe as a map and stacks with dozen thousand units running around, circa 2002, but may not fit your idea of continuous game view. supreme ruler 2010 had worldwide combat, c.a. 2005 or so if I recall it correctly. unit moved continuously and fought by the hundreds, as opposed to medieval total war movement by nation. they all had extremely complex interaction with terrain, including movement speed, hiding, defensive positioning and whatnot. there are plentiful war games that have extremely complex engagement rules, to the point implementing whatever you have in mind is just a matter of putting it in writing. basically the computer isn't the limit. the patience of gamers and market audience is the limit and what prevents extremely complex war games surface on the market (as in: complex in rules). that plus the factor that computer can actually simulate the whole environment and unit interaction physically, so no real need to have to approximate it out with rule lists. on the other hand, if you want to go into the indie space, you'll find plenty game with unbelievable depth, like aurora 4x - that got some serious rule lists, up and including combat readiness for crews and the need to ready them with training maneuvers which happen in space as the game actually goes.
    - simonh 9y ago
      Could you look at a single view in that game and see simultaneously every unit and element is in the game and their attributes? I know the answer is no. I know you know the answer is no. We both know this was the contention that was being made. It wasn't that computers cant handle complex games, or that they can't dusplay lots of complex information, it was just that they can't show all of that all at the the same time in one view. That's all. Why are you doing this?
      - LoSboccacc 9y ago
        That’s not the original contention. Beside, you’re not doing that either in the boardgame. You either see it as a whole or focus on some detail. Even if you try to see it all, the brain can focus only on one aspect at a time - the overview or the detail. Believing you can see both is disingenuous on how brain work. Sure all the paper may be laid out for you to see, but to read any stat you’d need to focus on a single element. Not unlike zooming in computers. The fact is, computers are great to present multilevel information and hide complexity on demand while allowing user to explore and discover details, while maintaining track of all the constraints of the game world. Of course if you postulate that picking a paper and see the detail is unlike zooming in and out on a game then you can claim the point to stand, but that’s basically so controved and poignant just to pretend computer can’t do what paper does that’s weird to even to have to debate it.