next »

[baconman]

That's not streamlining; which is taking a relatively complex set of actions and simplifying them to common denominators - like having a potion that cures all status ailments rather than specific ones. I think "shoehorning" or "funneling" is more the appropriate term. And I agree, removing a sense of freedom from gaming is just chunk-blowing.

EDIT: OVERSTRUCTURING. There it is.

[_Tommo_]

That's not streamlining; which is taking a relatively complex set of actions and simplifying them to common denominators

I think over-streamlining is good, as there can definitely be too much of it. Just take the "lowest denominator" and try to apply it to "everyone" and here you have a bland an on-rails game that completes itself.

[mirosurabu]

Polishing is when you take a finished game and make it look shinier. Polishing adds to the game.
Streamlining is when you take a messy-looking game and cut it so that it looks a little less messy. Streamlining takes away from the game.

When you take too much from the game you end up making an anorexic supermodel.

Personally I think it's fine and sometimes even desirable to have unfinished and flawed bits in the game, provided they do not severely clog the game.

[C.A. Sinner]

Personally I think it's fine and sometimes even desirable to have unfinished and flawed bits in the game, provided they do not severely clog the game.

I agree.

[Dragonmaw]

One of my favorite gameplay flaws is in Catherine, and it's a deliberate flaw. When texting somebody on your phone, you press a button to write a line, then either write another line or rewrite the current line. Mechanics-wise, this is annoying, since it forces the player to essentially make blind decisions over and over until they get the message they want. Within the atmosphere of the game, though, it's brilliant, as it mirrors the reluctance of the protagonist and his constant self-doubt. When you rewrite a message you can hear him mumble "no, that's not right" or sigh or grumble because he is second-guessing his text.

[Richard Kain]

Perhaps "railroading" would be the term we are looking for?

And as I wrote earlier, there is a place where removing control from the player is appropriate, or even desirable. I would point to the Dead Space franchise as an example of this. The first game in the series offered greater freedom of movement and exploration. But when the second game took that away, and offered a more linear experience, it didn't really suffer for it. This is because the rest of the design decisions made around Dead Space 2 were in service of its more linear nature. The developer accepted that they were taking agency away from the player, and rolled with that. Dead Space 2 is an example of railroading done right, a polished, enjoyable experience despite the lack of exploration.

[ducktails]

I still like using "streamlining" the best so far. I'd say that "railroading" is a streamlining technique.

i'd say that was untrue of starcraft 1 -- they took the rts genre and made it more interesting by having 3 opposing races, instead of the usual 2. that was pretty risky and paid off for them

Yeah, true, credit where it's due and all that jazz. Starcraft is a game that founded the RTS genre. I'd give credit to Age of Empires for first breaking the two race mold though. I'm not gonna admit to being an RTS connoisseur though.

[C.A. Sinner]

I'd give credit to Age of Empires for first breaking the two race mold though. I'm not gonna admit to being an RTS connoisseur though.

Yeah but in AOE the differences between the factions were relatively small. In SC every race has its own unique set of units and buildings.

On topic:
I don't think player agency or railroading directly factors into this. An "overpolished" game is a game whose design has been polished to the point of feeling bland and contrived. It's the videogame equivalent of a Steve Vai album or those lame kitten paintings you see in second-rate art galleries. Technically flawlessly executed but lacking in any interesting or original content.

Railroading can be a byproduct of that and is probably the result of the designer obsessing over showing off his "clever game design" and wanting to dictate every little aspect of the player's experience.

[Paul Eres]

yeah -- and not just unique ones, but there was also no overlap, which i think is important. wc1 and wc2 had different 'types' of units for each race, but they were both basically the same -- trolls were almost exactly like archers, grunts were almost exactly like soldiers, etc. sc1 was a pretty great feat of balance, since every race had things to counter every other unit of every other race

[Kramlack]

While I don't have anything concrete to add to this topic, I'm watching it closely because I almost uniquely focus on polish over everything else, so I'd like to hear what other people have to say.

[C.A. Sinner]

but there was also no overlap,

but that's exactly what i meant 

[Paul Eres]

you said "In SC every race has its own unique set of units and buildings." which doesn't necessarily imply no overlap, since that is just saying that each race has its own unique ones

example: "xbox360 and ps3 each have their own unique games" is true

[C.A. Sinner]

I said "own unique SET" implying the entire set is unique. whatever.

[Strife]

While I don't think over-polish is inherently bad for a game, it runs the risk of making it take far longer to complete. If the developer is too much of a perfectionist, they'll be compelled to fix even the slightest mistakes and imbalances that are discovered, leading to a never-ending cycle of testing and tweaking - known more commonly as Duke Nukem Forver Syndrome.

In other words, over-polish is more dangerous for the developers than it is for the game itself.

[Christian Knudsen]

I don't think over-polish was the reason for Duke Nukem Forever's long development. They just switched engines all the time because they wanted to always be working with state-of-the-art stuff. Kinda ironic how old and dated the game then actually felt upon release.