A slow build over the course of play, gradually testing their abilities until at last there is the climax. Having a game play out in a well-paced way allows players to follow through on that narrative progression. This is how it works, and this is a good thing. At some point, you have a decisive encounter which decides who wins. You're forced to expand, lest you fall behind. You have skirmishes, then major fights for territory. Over the course of the game, you gain new abilities and powers, and you choose to employ them in a variety of ways. And so forth and so on, until it builds to a climactic encounter that (presumably) tests a great many of your acquired/understood skills.Ī game of StarCraft works much the same way.
TOTAL ANNIHILATION KINGDOMS UNITS LEVEL UP HOW TO
Over the course of the game, you either gain new abilities, or you learn how to use your existing toolset to deal with greater and more complex challenges. At the start of a game, you have a few tools to tackle challenges. Etc.Īnd this works in game design as well. New villains crop up, or new plans are revealed. New characters are added, other characters are removed. Or at the very least, the complexity is frequently changing.
In a slower-paced story, complications are added more deliberately.īut in pretty much every work of fiction, the plot gets more complex with time, not less. In a fast-paced story, things change quickly and dynamically, with new complications happening sometimes faster than you can react to. How fast such dynamics in plot structure change over the course of a story represents the "pacing" of a story. This builds and builds until finally you reach a climactic encounter, followed by the resolution.
TOTAL ANNIHILATION KINGDOMS UNITS LEVEL UP TV
Game design is really not that different from plot structure in narrative entertainment (movies, TV shows, books, etc). I would like to challenge the framing of the primary thrust of this question: the notion that "flat" design is a good idea. How can I go about designing this kind of game? I can't even think of any RTS game that comes remotely close to this. In my opinion, this means that all changes perceived by the players must be a constant stream throughout the game (to avoid spikes in gameplay) as well as that players must have plenty of time to react to each change, and that reacting faster to the change gives no advantage. There are such games in other genres, such as fighting games where, ignoring the power-up bar, gameplay does not change much at all over time. In other words the game should feel more like a slow and steady tug of war than paintball. Players should not be sitting around waiting for something to happen and then have to frantically try to click as fast as possible once that something happens. In other words the gameplay experience should be "flat" without any spikes in activity, and there should be no surprises possible.
I want to create a game which not only removes micro but also removes any requirements for fast reactions throughout the game. In general, for any RTS game with a fog of war such that when enemy units are discovered, fast reactions would grant an advantage, this is a problem. This is especially a problem in Total Annihilation where being able to quickly react to incoming enemy bombers allows for the minimization of damage from the bombing run, which means a player who can react faster has an advantage over a player with a slower reaction time. This means at the start of the game, the gameplay is fairly dull, whereas later in the game it becomes so frantic that only extremely high APM players can play competently. In games such as Starcraft Brood War, players at the start of the game don't have as much to do compared to later on when they have to manage multiple battles and multiple bases at once.
0 kommentar(er)
