EPTNintendo Switch Thread - Page 113
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 29 2018 06:45 TheYango wrote: I actually think Wargroove is set up to massively underperform people's expectations. The thing about that kind of game is that it lives and dies by level design. The actual gameplay systems of Advance Wars are incredibly simple and straightforward, but that's not what actually makes it *good*. A game that attempts to capture what made Advance Wars great isn't going to do it just by copying the look, feel, and core gameplay formula. The level design is what makes or breaks the game, and that's not something you expect a developer to figure out overnight or get right on their first try. Intelligent Systems made more than a decade worth of Fire Emblem and Wars games before they made Advance Wars, and the NES iterations of both had a lot of growing pains they had to go through before they kind of had an idea what they were doing toward the end of the SNES's lifecycle. Chucklefish isn't just going to copy that and get it right on the first try. Things like enemy placement, objectives that encourage proactive play, or proper use of terrain for both functional and aesthetic appeal are very non-straightforward design elements that are incredibly difficult to do well. Tactics games are like 2d platformers. There are an uncountable number of Mario and Megaman clones on the NES and SNES, but what made the originals good isn't unique mechanics or special core gameplay elements, it's level design. I totally agree with this. So many RTS games have come out in the last 20 years with over tooled units, overly complex economies/tech trees and map design and mechanics at dull as drying paint. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Imo the core mechanics (units and terrain cells) need to be tight themselves and even a slightly altered clone of AW can fail hugely in that department. I'd say it's kind of a BW/SC2 type of deal. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
You could probably have a mildly interesting game with an all-plain map in AW. My point is that the shape of the board doesn't matter too much, as long as the atomic pieces are interesting. I would definitely not feel this way about Fire Emblem for example. The units are not diverse enough that you can slack off on maps. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On August 29 2018 22:35 ZenithM wrote: See I don't think I agree on this. I remember having fun in AW with fucking rectangular maps fully covered with trees :D. The fun factor there wasn't so much reliant on the map than on the tile itself (the single tree) and how units interact with it. You could probably have a mildly interesting game with an all-plain map in AW. My point is that the shape of the board doesn't matter too much, as long as the atomic pieces are interesting. I would definitely not feel this way about Fire Emblem for example. The units are not diverse enough that you can slack off on maps. There's also the fact that units are more expendable in AW than they are in FE. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Someone can’t design a map with any intent if they don’t know how the units are going to play on that map. That's completely true, I'm just saying you can design units without knowing the kind of precise maps you will play them on. Map design isn't that delicate that it's completely interlaced with the design of the smaller parts. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 30 2018 00:23 andrewlt wrote: From the single AW game I played, I don't think the units themselves are that interesting. The beauty of the game is in how certain units just shine in certain maps. Agreed. Most of my favorite tactics games have really simple unit design for the majority of unit. It is the variance in maps and subtle changes in units that make it interesting. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
HoMM is all complete empty rectangular boards. Same for some tactical RPGs like Banner Saga. XCom has randomized maps, which shows their layout isn't that crucial in the first place. Admittedly some of these examples probably belong to your "overtooled units" thing, but I don't see why it would be any different for AW-like games. You can get convoluted and counter that actually maybe the restrictions on the movement of chess pieces defines a very complex "implicit" map. But really for the most part, game designers think of pieces before thinking of maps/boards. What's a good example of game where maps are so important in your eyes? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I talking about INIS, War of the Ring amd other more carefully designed board games that have clear direction when it comes to their maps. Even the game of thrones board game(which has a bunch of fiddly rules that get in the way of the true game, back stabbing) has this carefully tested game board that uses space to create advantages for different factions. Board game designers don't get to patch their games or "rely on the community" to make good maps. So they have to thing of both the map and units at the same time, which leads to more holistic design. X-com is a good example. Although the maps are random, they are made up of pre-made building designs. Also, the design of Xcom has clearly built all units in the to interact with parts of the board in specific ways. Troops have powers, but there is nothing wrong with one that is just a long range unit that dumps DPS. Its hard to look at something like SC2, Ashes of the Singularity or even Total Annihilation and not feel that the terrain itself was a complete afterthought. And I like SC2 and Total Annihilation 1 & 2. But Dota is the king when it comes to maps that make the game what it is. A single section of a lane or part of the jungle is packed with as much nuance and subtle tricks as an entire RTS full of maps. Now, that game cheats because it gets away with having one map that they can refine to a razors edge, but it is still the king. RTS and tactics games should design the play space and the units at the same time. The complexity of both units and terrain should be built up together, so designers don't feel to the need to strap special ability onto the most basic of units(looking at you Relic). | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
So was the design of the map particularly tied to that of the heroes? Also Dota is like, the poster child for overtooled units :D. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And Dotas units are over tooled, but you only get one(unless you are meepo) and some of them are dull as bricks. Wraith King exists and is great. Dota isn't afraid to have simple units or heroes. Most modern RTS games are. Some tactics games too. Another great example in Invisable Inc., which is a stealth tactics game. Random maps, with some design rules. But the game has these simple systems that are layered on each other to create a complex game. Its a game where the ability unlock doors without getting the key card seems amazingly powerful because it removes a layer of complexity in a dense clockwork system. And each "room" is complex enough to require thought, while also being simple enough to easily readable. And god damn why isn't in on switch. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
This extends to a lot of your other examples--they work without complex map design because their depth doesn't *actually* come from tactics gameplay, it comes from character building/resource management gameplay. Games like HoMM, X-Com, and Banner Saga are more like RPGs or Management Sims with turn-based systems to resolve combat, not dedicated tactics games. If you removed their combat components, the games would still work via their other mechanics. The reason they don't need good map design is because they don't need tactical combat. That's totally fine for games that are designed that way, but Advance Wars doesn't have that. It has no character building, and incredibly rudimentary resource management. Without good level design driving the tactics gameplay, there is nothing else. Also, competitive BW is pretty much always the crowning example of how much good map design could elevate a game. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
I'm standing by my opinion that it was VERY easy in Advance Wars to come up with a map (with the editor) that was fun to play. I find the interactions between the units and the terrain interesting by themselves. And the Wargrove guys basically cloned these. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46237 Posts
| ||
| ||
