Settlement in Design Philosophy

ID:153513
 
Nov 20 2003, 12:59 pm
I am currently making a game called SETTLEMENT. You can either be an indian or a englishmen. You must plant corn, tomatos, etc to survive, Create pots to place food in for the winter, Kill off animals trying to eat your crops or for food, You need to also kill deer/etc to make coats so you won't freeze during the winter, find sticks to make fire, to make arrows, spears, etc. And to win the game you must attack the englishmen if you're an idian or indians if you are a englishmen. When all the opponent's members are gone you're team (idians/englishmen) win!

Siientx
#1 Nov 20 2003, 1:04 pm
I wouldn't have an actual 'all people must die' thing to win, I would have it so that if you have, say, 75% of the other team dead you start gaining points. The more of them dead, the more points you get, until they even out the scores by getting more people to join.
#2 Nov 20 2003, 2:17 pm
Since when did English settlers kill people from India with arrows and spears?

I mean, really, if it's going to be this far-fetched, why not just set it in a completely original setting?
#3 Nov 21 2003, 4:49 pm
In response to Garthor (#2)
*cough* They're not called Indians unless they're from India *cough*

There are ways to make it realistic and still keep it balanced. The settlers might have better weapons, but perhaps the natives can use the terrain more effectively (with hiding and strategy) and get more people on their team.
#4 Nov 21 2003, 5:00 pm
In response to Garthor (#2)
Garthor wrote:
I mean, really, if it's going to be this far-fetched, why not just set it in a completely original setting?

um, hello? it is a game, therefore it inherits "far-fetchedness" automatically, unless he claims that the game is a historical re-creation/simulation. :p
#5 Nov 21 2003, 7:01 pm
In response to Crispy (#3)
Crispy wrote:
*cough* They're not called Indians unless they're from India *cough*

That depends on if you are going for technical accuracy or political correctness. They were Indian's back in the period the game is set in, so it would make sense if the people in the game refered to them that way.
#6 Nov 21 2003, 7:06 pm
In response to DarkView (#5)
Fine, but at least call them American Indians or something. Just so we know that the game isn't set in an alternate history where England and India had a war. =P
#7 Nov 21 2003, 10:20 pm
In response to Crispy (#6)
lol....
#8 Nov 22 2003, 5:00 am
In response to Crispy (#6)
... They did.
#9 Nov 22 2003, 10:00 am
In response to Exadv1 (#8)
Thats what I was thinking...
#10 Nov 22 2003, 12:57 pm
In response to Crispy (#3)
I think it's funny that you want to fault his "inaccuracy" but at the same time, you want it to be balanced... yeah, because we all know that the European colonization of North America was a real suspensefull thing that really could've gone either way, a battle between two evenly matched forces that could've gone on forever unless one side or the other made a mistake...
#11 Nov 22 2003, 6:06 pm
In response to Jotdaniel (#9)
That's the point. =P
#12 Nov 22 2003, 6:07 pm
In response to Hedgemistress (#10)
Hey, it's a game. Where's the fun if it's not balanced? It does seem a little silly to make both sides exactly the same, though, given that they were historically very different.
#13 Nov 23 2003, 1:49 am
In response to Crispy (#12)
Crispy wrote:
Where's the fun if it's not balanced?

Ever play any of the "Hardcore" levels in the old Doom style games? They were fun because of how insanely unbalanced they were (Although you got used to it, so it became balanced once you adjusted).
#14 Nov 23 2003, 2:16 am
In response to DarkView (#13)
I assume you're talking about singleplayer levels. (No, I haven't played them.) It's fine to have the other side too powerful in singleplayer games; that just means you have a hard game. =) But it makes for boringly predictable multiplayer; unless of course one player is much better at playing than the other, which is quite often not the case.
#15 Nov 23 2003, 3:22 pm
In response to Crispy (#14)
Yeah I was talking about single player games in the example, but my point was that the game doesn't have to be about winning.
Human's could always win, but the challange for the Orc's would be how badly they could dent the Human forces before getting whiped off the face of the Earth. Likewise the challange for the Human's could be how badly they could slaughter the stupid Orc's.
#16 Nov 23 2003, 10:35 pm
In response to DarkView (#15)
Depends what the victory conditions are in the game. Killing one third of the humans might be a victory conditions for the weak orcs, while the humans would have to wipe out all of the orcs. Or if, humans and orcs respawn, orcs only have to get 1/3 of the kills. Either way, that is still a balanced game because it's just as easy for either side to win.
#17 Nov 23 2003, 10:59 pm
In response to Crispy (#16)
No, your missing my point. At the risk of sounding like someone from a Rocky movie, it's about the thrill of the fight, not who wins.
Especially in a game like this. Win, lose or draw the game isn't going to change. You aren't trying to get to the next level, you're just playing.
#18 Nov 23 2003, 11:26 pm
In response to DarkView (#17)
Fair enough. I'd say this is more true in a LAN setting, though, as you can communicate face-to-face with your opponent. It'd be a lot easier to get frustrated if you were playing a game like that against an opponent hiding behind a screen name and a keyboard.