The problem with Panther Games

External Since: Dec 01, 2004 Posts: 398

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:08:29 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999 RemoveThis @NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <=b1nR07O9I1i+fD1szocB2qsbXKb@4ax.com>,
>fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
>
>> >Again, I am not take a swipe at you. I have heard similar comments
>> >many times. But, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!! Sometimes you just can't
>> >win.
>> >
>>
>> The fact that CotA doesn't 'grab' you and pull you in seems to be a
>> common element in this thread. It's a catch-22; the better your AI and
>> the more realistic your control delays, the more noticeable this
>> problem becomes.
>>
>> If that's true, it follows that at some point you have to step back
>> and say 'my AI is good enough and I have plenty of features, now what
>> do I do for the playability and style of this game?'
>
>To be fair to the system, though, while you *can* give orders to very
>high echelon units and essentially let AI play AI, almost nobody every
>does this. It's like my chess program; I *can* set it to play itself
>... but why do this? And if I do choose to set it up this way, is it
>valid to complain that my interaction is so limited?

Two things:
- It doesn't really matter whether it's a valid compaint or not. It's
a complaint that a lot of people have, and it's a safe bet that it
keeps more than just a few from buying more than one game in the
series.
- Overall, I think it has more to do with lack of immersion than lack
of control. There might be ways of handling that other than giving
the player more control. A system that gives you more feedback for
example? More eye candy to show a player what's actually occuring?

Rgds, Frank

External Since: Mar 23, 2005 Posts: 728

In article <nvpnRw9VApr=CA0f6frTI4fmw2zk@4ax.com>,
fakeaddress.DeleteThis@hotmail.com says...

> >> If that's true, it follows that at some point you have to step back
> >> and say 'my AI is good enough and I have plenty of features, now what
> >> do I do for the playability and style of this game?'
> >
> >To be fair to the system, though, while you *can* give orders to very
> >high echelon units and essentially let AI play AI, almost nobody every
> >does this. It's like my chess program; I *can* set it to play itself
> >... but why do this? And if I do choose to set it up this way, is it
> >valid to complain that my interaction is so limited?
>
> Two things:
> - It doesn't really matter whether it's a valid compaint or not. It's
> a complaint that a lot of people have, and it's a safe bet that it
> keeps more than just a few from buying more than one game in the
> series.

....which brings us back to your original point and suggests a demo. I
think it's mainly a perception - and a *wrong* perception - on the part
of people who've never played the game that keeps them away. I think a
full-featured demo with a couple of decent scenarios might fix this.

> - Overall, I think it has more to do with lack of immersion than lack
> of control. There might be ways of handling that other than giving
> the player more control. A system that gives you more feedback for
> example? More eye candy to show a player what's actually occuring?

Yeah. I've always thought the messages were a little scanty and
generic. Maybe do more with them, or let the player set status or
mission popups.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"I still find it hard to believe that the invention of the catapult
preceded the invention of the computer and all its peripherals; nothing
in human history exceeds the ability of the computer to make its user
want to construct a device that hurls heavy objects as far away as
possible."
- James Lileks