Michael Dorosh
der Spieß des Forums
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2004
- Messages
- 15,733
- Reaction score
- 2,765
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- First name
- Michael
- Country
I suggested at another forum that BFC should abandon WEGO in Combat Mission Normandy altogether and spelled out a few reasons why I think so. Hard to make one's self heard wherever their beta testers gather though, as you've identified:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=79388
So thought I'd kick it around here for discussion.
My reasons are these:
It was bad enough when you had to try and design scenarios for solo play vs. Axis, solo play vs. Allies, and head to head, and then decide if players should use default set up or random, and tell the player which was best (if you even knew) but now you have all these options regarding RT/WEGO play, and the scenarios are long, and you have all the scripting options (which are a ***** to test because the last time I designed a scenario, there was no easy way to "force" any 1 of the 5 script options in the editor, so you had to delete the 4 you didn't want, or else just play it a bunch of times til you got the result you wanted). It's a nightmare for playtesters, and I suspect a lot of erstwhile designers therefore don't bother. Which is only one minor issue.
Steve keeps talking about keeping the decision making interface lean - you pretty much have to for RT. But if this is going to reduce the number of realistic options such as detailed engineering options when there are finally wire/obstacle/entrenchments, I think this speaks to a greater incentive to realize there is a real schism at play and just acknowledge that as nice as it is to appeal to both RT and WEGO players, it can't go on forever. Eventually you need to decide to have a lean and mean interface, or a detailed decision tree. The pause function is either a nice way to split the difference - or a crutch.
What do you all think? Can you have a game that does both well?
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=79388
So thought I'd kick it around here for discussion.
My reasons are these:
- Until late, there was no support for TCP play for WEGO, officially due to technical reasons. Point being that WEGO seemed to be an afterthought from the start.
- Steve came out on the forum and said he prefers RT to WEGO, and said that if there are technical issues in WEGO play, other playtesters had best inform him about it - he does his testing in RT.
- Command delays were never implemented in WEGO and they are only as of late being examined for inclusion.
It was bad enough when you had to try and design scenarios for solo play vs. Axis, solo play vs. Allies, and head to head, and then decide if players should use default set up or random, and tell the player which was best (if you even knew) but now you have all these options regarding RT/WEGO play, and the scenarios are long, and you have all the scripting options (which are a ***** to test because the last time I designed a scenario, there was no easy way to "force" any 1 of the 5 script options in the editor, so you had to delete the 4 you didn't want, or else just play it a bunch of times til you got the result you wanted). It's a nightmare for playtesters, and I suspect a lot of erstwhile designers therefore don't bother. Which is only one minor issue.
Steve keeps talking about keeping the decision making interface lean - you pretty much have to for RT. But if this is going to reduce the number of realistic options such as detailed engineering options when there are finally wire/obstacle/entrenchments, I think this speaks to a greater incentive to realize there is a real schism at play and just acknowledge that as nice as it is to appeal to both RT and WEGO players, it can't go on forever. Eventually you need to decide to have a lean and mean interface, or a detailed decision tree. The pause function is either a nice way to split the difference - or a crutch.
What do you all think? Can you have a game that does both well?