Re: Computer vs Board (was Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start)

From: rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1993 12:32:52 +0000

In article <troyer.741984818@cgl.ucsf.edu>, troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu (John M. Troyer) writes:
>
<Section deleted because I don't want to argue with any of it>

> sweeping generalizations:
This should probably have been in in large flashing colours, underlined etc
but you're probably still going to get flamed   :-)

>
> Board-wargames are marketed for anal retentive wargamers. They may have
> complicated rules, but they are extensively playtested for bad rules.
> (Bad rules interfere with play/are illogical/destroy game balance/etc.)
>
As a generalization, I agree, but would have put it more diplomatically   :-)
Also, they usually have less complex rules than anything which is being
modelled on a computer system. Not always, but usually.

> Commercial mac/pc computer games are marketed for 12 year olds. They try
> not to be very complex, and are sometimes playtested for both bad rules and
> bugs.  (sometimes not, eg Pax Imperia)
>
Yup
Internally, they may be complex, but the interface used is usually reduced to
a less complex front end to make it easy to use for the majority of people.

> Non-commercial computer games are written by students or bored programmers.
> They tend to be complex (eg empire, galaxy, gb, nethack, et al.), since
> coding is easier than playtesting. Since they cannot swipe playtested
> boardgame rules, they have a tendancy to have bad rules. They always have bugs.
>
This is where I both agree and differ.
I believe that some people, not necessarily bored programmers or students,
but rather frustrated gamers, are actually producing some good systems which
go to the net for live playtesting. They develop them because they want
to be able to play a certain sort of game and can't find the style they want,
so they produce it themselves. Sometimes badly, sometimes well.
Often the net games are there *TO BE PLAYTESTED*. Olympia always warned
players that it was only a Beta-test version. It was just a rapidly evolving
beta-test version. But thats what test versions are for.    :-)
I won't argue about bugs, any code I have seen for computer systems *always*
have bugs, one just hopes that the major ones have been fixed, and the minor
ones don't interfere too much with the game, and will get fixed as and when
they become obvious.
Some of those are actually there in a beta-test stage with a long term
possibility of becoming commercial games in the future
There are some good systems around which run well and have (mainly) well
balanced rules that have been tested and adjusted over time.
I consider Galaxy to be one of these. There have been some imbalances and
bad documentation within the rules at times, but in general I consider that
these have developed well and are continuing to evolve.

> Scientific simulation packages are written by lots and lots of grad students
> and postdocs over the years (in contrast to the above, which are written
> by only a few people.) They are bug-tested by hundreds of scientists. They
> use up millions in grants. They still have bugs.
>
Thats just life in the software game...  :-)

> Now, when you get a few million in grants to code up an ASL simulation, give
> me a call. I'll pay $49.95 for a copy.
>
Someone is likely to do it as a labour of love. And then put it to the net
for playtesting and it will change until ASL wouldn't recognize it.
But there is a good chance it will become a good, playable, game in the
process, or else it may die due to bad rules, bad implementation, or the
programmer may just give it up.
Not everything has to start as a fully commercial project.

> ps I know I'm comparing apples & oranges here. Don't nitpick. It says
If you're on the net, you've got to expect your nits to be picked.   :-)

> 'sweeping generalizations', ok? But I do think that something more complex
> than any boardgame could be coded up. And the complexity hidden so that it
> was playable. I just don't think it's economically feasible to do so right
> now.
>
I think that it is happening in many places. And its not being done as an
'economic' process, its being done because its done for fun.
I just hope that the developing games around continue to evolve to maturity.
galaxy, Empire, Olympia etc
They all evolve, some get better, some get worse, some get forgotten because
the developer(s) run out of interest/time. But some have a chance to break
through into a new generation of game that is designed for >12 year olds
and can be played with some degree of maturity, have concealed complexity,
good rules, have been extensively playtested and hold the interest.

And then we'll have something new to argue about...

Rob McNeur
Rob@ccc.govt.nz

References

Computer vs Board (was Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start)
troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu (John M. Troyer)
Tue, 06 Jul 1993 18:53:38 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
bc@lnec.pt (Luis Miguel Sequeira)
Tue, 06 Jul 1993 17:49:51 +0000