Another realism concern

rasqual · 08-16-2005, 08:52 AM

Whokay, now. . .

We have entire armies costing just a few Geos. Yet a Geo is a unit like a dollar, or a gyro . . . er, Euro. ;-)

Something's not good, there.

On the one hand, a Geo is worth so much you fly around the world like a nut to get just half of one (a jewel). Well, that's consistent with being able to buy something as genuinely expensive as an army, I guess. But then on the other hand, it's our unit of currency.

This means that a pizza would cost something on the order of a nano-Geo, man. Seriously. Think about it. This could get weird when you've developed the game to where we can actually order pizzas.

;-)

Mickey · 08-16-2005, 12:45 PM

Good point. So scale it up by x100? x1000? Easy enough to change overall scale at this point...

rasqual · 08-16-2005, 08:51 PM

Well, how many dollars would something have to be worth for you to fly around the world to get half of one? ;-)

Then how many of them would you need to outfit an army?

Don't guess -- actually estimate. Get 'er in the ballpark, at least.

birq · 08-16-2005, 09:11 PM

I have a realism concern as well -- I'm worried about the game getting too realistic. It's supposed to be a game and not entirely like real life. I already have to deal with real life on a daily basis, and what I want from a game is an escape, not more drudgery and dullery

I'm strongly encouraging sacrificing some realism for fun.

Edit: And for the record, I don't care if "dullery" isn't a word. I'm still going to use it.

patrickf · 08-16-2005, 11:03 PM

Just a quick point, not sure if its been raised already, but how about renaming nukes to air strikes? Its much more likely you'd want to blow the crap out of a city using more conventional bombs, and also gets rid of all those "environmental" issues? It also allows for multiple attacks to make sense and why only certain casualties might ok!

Just a thought

Paddy

rasqual · 08-18-2005, 05:32 AM

birq -

I don't think Google Earth's platform is a great place to hope for less realism. You can get that ANYWHERE. The question is simple: why would a platform that is continually including more and more data about the real world -- and to which people are adding more and more data about the real world in rich, diverse, and numerous ways (see the keyhole boards) -- why, in a world FULL of fanciful games, would anyone be disappointed to find just one game that leverages all this information?

As time passes, ACTUAL data from Earth will be more and more available, and will allow for interaction with Mickey's server-side logic. To pooh-pooh realism because one supposes Earth should be as escapist as all the other thousands of games out there, seems wrong on two points: (a) it's ill-suited to the platform, which fosters the prospect of unprecedented realism on a vast datagraphic scale, and (b) who's to say that diving into that kind of realism isn't escapist? On the latter point, we're not saying that it should be realistic enough that I will end up, once Mickey's done, being myself with my current job. Good grief. We're bombing and taking over cities. That's certainly unrealistic, but as the predominant advocate for realism here, you haven't heard me complain. We get to play roles we never get to play in the real world. If that's not escape, I don't know what is!

It's quite probable, though, that by leveraging real-world data in days to come, Mickey might just create a game that's also educational in ways we can't imagine now. There are a LOT of ways this could go.

Beezer · 08-18-2005, 02:53 PM

I agree with Rasqual. There are so many other games out there designed to be "escapist" games. It's nice to have a game based on more realistic concepts and data for a change.

birq · 08-18-2005, 03:47 PM

I should clarify again -- I'm not against realism. Quite the opposite. I think the more realistic a game is, the more involved it is, and the more involved it is, the potential for a truly great game increases. But there's a point when "involved" becomes like "work". If I want to sit and perform repetitive, boring tasks for hours, punctuated by a couple short moments of excitement, I can just stay at work longer.

A perfect example of what I'm talking about is NeoPets. In case you don't have kids (or you yourself are not a kid), NeoPets is an online "game" (community/experience/mmorpg) where you adopt cute little furry creatures and then have to care for them. It sounds like the most boring, mundane thing in the universe, but the guy that developed it made it with fun in mind and it has turned into the stickiest kids' web site ever.

The key to NeoPets is variety. You have to collect NeoPoints to be able to pay for stuff, but there are literally HUNDREDS of ways to earn them. If you don't like one way, focus on any of the others. Some are completely devoid of skill (click on the Money Tree and collect stuff), and some take a heck of a lot of skill (among which are dozens of Flash games). But you can't do ANY of them more than 3 times in a day to get points, which forces you into variety.

Now, before you roast me, understand that I'm not suggesting this game be tailored for 6-year-olds -- it's only an example of how you can take an idea that could be dull and repetitive and turn it into the stickiest site in the history of the electron.

When I posted the message "Winner?" a couple days ago, I was thinking about a game duration of a few weeks. araT's idea of having mini-games with a duration of a few hours is even better. You could even go farther and have 1-on-1 (either real player or against computer) mini-games that last under 30 minutes where you can earn or lose Geos. Some as simplistic as gambling, some that require actual skill.

Anyway, I just realized that I'm quite possibly rambling, so I'll stop. The point is that I'm not a realism-hater, I'm an advocate for people with a normal-length attention span.

araT · 08-18-2005, 03:54 PM

couldnt agree with you more, birq

We dont need mundayne chores..

..Neopets appeared when I was still at school, and while I was a little old by then (16 or 17) I remember seeing 100's or yr 7'ers playing it any chance they got!

I like how you extended my mini-game idea, i can really see us running with that! !

Thanks for further explaining your concept, and for all your brilliant ideas! you are really helping us evolve GEwar

T.

Mickey · 08-18-2005, 08:45 PM

Agreed. The mini-game idea might work well!

rasqual · 08-18-2005, 09:13 PM

Thanks for clarifying, Birq! If you'd been anti-real, I'd've had to've nuked one of your urbs. LOL

Mickey, you have a lot of diverse ideas that'll inform your decisions. We're all lobbying you! Again, though, kudos. You're doing major good work. I think you'll have everyone's support, even if we're sure to grumble on a few things. When the host is personally vested and doing his best, no such complaints will become grudges. Besides, even if they did we could clear the air with a nuke in your direction. ;-)

birq · 08-18-2005, 09:27 PM

I think rasqual is getting a little nuke happy

08-16-2005, 08:52 AM	#1
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	Another realism concern Whokay, now. . . We have entire armies costing just a few Geos. Yet a Geo is a unit like a dollar, or a gyro . . . er, Euro. ;-) Something's not good, there. On the one hand, a Geo is worth so much you fly around the world like a nut to get just half of one (a jewel). Well, that's consistent with being able to buy something as genuinely expensive as an army, I guess. But then on the other hand, it's our unit of currency. This means that a pizza would cost something on the order of a nano-Geo, man. Seriously. Think about it. This could get weird when you've developed the game to where we can actually order pizzas. ;-)

08-16-2005, 11:03 PM	#5
patrickf Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland Posts: 38	Using Nukes Just a quick point, not sure if its been raised already, but how about renaming nukes to air strikes? Its much more likely you'd want to blow the crap out of a city using more conventional bombs, and also gets rid of all those "environmental" issues? It also allows for multiple attacks to make sense and why only certain casualties might ok! Just a thought Paddy

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-16-2005, 12:45 PM	#2
Mickey Administrator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,328	Good point. So scale it up by x100? x1000? Easy enough to change overall scale at this point...

08-16-2005, 08:51 PM	#3
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	Well, how many dollars would something have to be worth for you to fly around the world to get half of one? ;-) Then how many of them would you need to outfit an army? Don't guess -- actually estimate. Get 'er in the ballpark, at least.

08-16-2005, 09:11 PM	#4
birq Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 296	I have a realism concern as well -- I'm worried about the game getting too realistic. It's supposed to be a game and not entirely like real life. I already have to deal with real life on a daily basis, and what I want from a game is an escape, not more drudgery and dullery I'm strongly encouraging sacrificing some realism for fun. Edit: And for the record, I don't care if "dullery" isn't a word. I'm still going to use it.

08-18-2005, 05:32 AM	#6
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	birq - I don't think Google Earth's platform is a great place to hope for less realism. You can get that ANYWHERE. The question is simple: why would a platform that is continually including more and more data about the real world -- and to which people are adding more and more data about the real world in rich, diverse, and numerous ways (see the keyhole boards) -- why, in a world FULL of fanciful games, would anyone be disappointed to find just one game that leverages all this information? As time passes, ACTUAL data from Earth will be more and more available, and will allow for interaction with Mickey's server-side logic. To pooh-pooh realism because one supposes Earth should be as escapist as all the other thousands of games out there, seems wrong on two points: (a) it's ill-suited to the platform, which fosters the prospect of unprecedented realism on a vast datagraphic scale, and (b) who's to say that diving into that kind of realism isn't escapist? On the latter point, we're not saying that it should be realistic enough that I will end up, once Mickey's done, being myself with my current job. Good grief. We're bombing and taking over cities. That's certainly unrealistic, but as the predominant advocate for realism here, you haven't heard me complain. We get to play roles we never get to play in the real world. If that's not escape, I don't know what is! It's quite probable, though, that by leveraging real-world data in days to come, Mickey might just create a game that's also educational in ways we can't imagine now. There are a LOT of ways this could go.

08-18-2005, 02:53 PM	#7
Beezer Master of the Universe Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: In a house Posts: 524	I agree with Rasqual. There are so many other games out there designed to be "escapist" games. It's nice to have a game based on more realistic concepts and data for a change.

08-18-2005, 03:47 PM	#8
birq Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 296	I should clarify again -- I'm not against realism. Quite the opposite. I think the more realistic a game is, the more involved it is, and the more involved it is, the potential for a truly great game increases. But there's a point when "involved" becomes like "work". If I want to sit and perform repetitive, boring tasks for hours, punctuated by a couple short moments of excitement, I can just stay at work longer. A perfect example of what I'm talking about is NeoPets. In case you don't have kids (or you yourself are not a kid), NeoPets is an online "game" (community/experience/mmorpg) where you adopt cute little furry creatures and then have to care for them. It sounds like the most boring, mundane thing in the universe, but the guy that developed it made it with fun in mind and it has turned into the stickiest kids' web site ever. The key to NeoPets is variety. You have to collect NeoPoints to be able to pay for stuff, but there are literally HUNDREDS of ways to earn them. If you don't like one way, focus on any of the others. Some are completely devoid of skill (click on the Money Tree and collect stuff), and some take a heck of a lot of skill (among which are dozens of Flash games). But you can't do ANY of them more than 3 times in a day to get points, which forces you into variety. Now, before you roast me, understand that I'm not suggesting this game be tailored for 6-year-olds -- it's only an example of how you can take an idea that could be dull and repetitive and turn it into the stickiest site in the history of the electron. When I posted the message "Winner?" a couple days ago, I was thinking about a game duration of a few weeks. araT's idea of having mini-games with a duration of a few hours is even better. You could even go farther and have 1-on-1 (either real player or against computer) mini-games that last under 30 minutes where you can earn or lose Geos. Some as simplistic as gambling, some that require actual skill. Anyway, I just realized that I'm quite possibly rambling, so I'll stop. The point is that I'm not a realism-hater, I'm an advocate for people with a normal-length attention span.

08-18-2005, 03:54 PM	#9
araT Licensed to Ban Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Sydney, Oz Posts: 1,244	couldnt agree with you more, birq We dont need mundayne chores.. ..Neopets appeared when I was still at school, and while I was a little old by then (16 or 17) I remember seeing 100's or yr 7'ers playing it any chance they got! I like how you extended my mini-game idea, i can really see us running with that! ! Thanks for further explaining your concept, and for all your brilliant ideas! you are really helping us evolve GEwar T.

08-18-2005, 08:45 PM	#10
Mickey Administrator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,328	Agreed. The mini-game idea might work well!

08-18-2005, 09:13 PM	#11
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	Thanks for clarifying, Birq! If you'd been anti-real, I'd've had to've nuked one of your urbs. LOL Mickey, you have a lot of diverse ideas that'll inform your decisions. We're all lobbying you! Again, though, kudos. You're doing major good work. I think you'll have everyone's support, even if we're sure to grumble on a few things. When the host is personally vested and doing his best, no such complaints will become grudges. Besides, even if they did we could clear the air with a nuke in your direction. ;-)

08-18-2005, 09:27 PM	#12
birq Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 296	I think rasqual is getting a little nuke happy