🚀 go-pugleaf

Derek Smart wrote... 


> > Excerpt begins  -----------------------------
> > 
> > I tried it, and although the presentation was very good, the in-game
> > graphics are showing their age.
> 
> hehe, go take a look at what's in store for the sequel due out later
> this year.
> 

I mentioned that - the new screenshots do look very nice.


> > It also has a learning curve that makes the Himalayas look like a small
> > pimple.
> 
> That's not going to change anytime soon but I've moved to a fully
> iconized bridge for the Battlecruiser, complete with point and click
> flight planning (if you touch the joystick when flying the BC, it's
> because you want to) as well as moved more tasks into the personnel ai
> and decision tree, complete with the ability to delegate duties to any
> of the bridge officers. In short, under total AI control, the Flight
> Officer, Nav Officer and Tactical Officer can perform any number of
> procedures which range from combat and navigation to weapon systems
> control. All you have to do is make sure their ass is on duty <g>
> 

That will help a lot with giving the player a chance to catch his
breath and learn on the go, but the current interface is very
unintuative, and downright unfriendly. There are *so* many TLAs on the
main screen.


> > Although there is the argument that complex software means a
> > complex/deep interface, I found many things very unintuative indeed,
> > and it did put me right off the game.
> 
> Yes, that's been the main gripe but when you're writing an indepth game
> that stands the test of time, and after spending years and years honing
> the technology to go with it, you _certainly_ don't want it to be 100
> hour title. The fact that people are still playing a 1996 title,
> enhanced in 1997 and 1998, does not surprise me in the least. I KNEW
> that would happen and that's what I wanted when I designed. Not
> forgetting that Take Two released it incomplete and for all intent and
> purposes, it should'nt have gone anywhere from there. If I didn't have a
> 'franchise' in mind, I would never have been able to pull off a sequel
> (Battlecruiser 3020AD) in such a short time.

Well people are still playing "Hack" and "Rogue", and they have
pretty unfriendly interfaces. BC is a lot more sophisticated, but is
still (IMHO) difficult to interact with.

> 
> > I think Derek will have to have a hard think about how to make the
> > player interact more easily without having to learn the whole of the
> > giant manual by heart before even starting the game.
> 
> You're right, I am having a hard time with this but the fact of the
> matter is that the game will cater to those who want an indepth sim as
> well as a shooter (The Xtreme Carnage module is just as good a shooter
> as any). Considering that most companies are placing emphasis on
> strategic elements (XCOM-Interceptor for instance) and using proven
> product lines to test it (Rebellion anyone?), I think the time has come
> for indepth titles. The generation-next kids on the block are not going
> to be buying/upgrading powerhouses (P233 or higher) to play the next
> version of Outwars or Forsaken. Games are getting cheaper and access is
> expanding, therefore there's still a budget for Forsaken,
> Descent-Freespace, Independence War (I-War in the UK) and BC:3020AD.
> 

I have no problem with any of that, but I still think that you can
have complex games with good user interfaces, and steep learning curves
with tools and techniques to help teach players how the game works
(such as training missions with instructors telling you what keys to
press to complete the objectives). BC in its current state just throws
you in at the deep end, and doesn't do itself justice because of that.


> > With the upcoming graphics engine, the game does show a lot of
> > potential,
> 
> That's just a byproduct of our wanting to take advantage of the leaps in
> graphics technology. My focus remains on gameplay.
> 

Indeed, but the market will only stand a game being so far off the
pace from cutting edge. A good game will get away with last years
graphics, but not the year before.


> > but I would have been disappointed if I'd paid money for it.
> 
> In what respect?
> 

In that I would have bought a game that would have meant I would have
had to have spent many, many of my precious gaming hours learning how
to play the game well enough before getting any fun out of it. 


> 
> > I think the real problem you have to address with BC3000 is how to make
> > that learning curve easier. It's so offputting not to be able to do
> > anything easily.  You can click on things, but there is a real problem
> > in how one thing links to another. eg, its very easy to select a
> > hyperspace destination, but once you've done that, there is nothing
> > that is obvious about how you activate that jump.  Its easy to jump
> > between the different modules, (personnel, messages, etc), but once you
> > get there, things loose their coherence.
> 
> There is no way to make the learning curve easier and I'm not even going
> to try. Changes are being made to address _some_ issues but BC3K will
> remain complex and top notch in all aspects. If you've even played any
> of Jane's sims, you won't find anyone asking for Origin to make them any
> simpler because you lose the entire premise. BC3K is not X-Wing as TF is
> not I-War. Different games, same genre.

Of course there is - training missions, simulator, instructors telling
you how to do things. Loads of games have done this to teach players
how things work. Freespace, Wing Commander, I-War, Mechwarrior, etc.
Even games like C&C, Total Anilliation, etc wind the player up gently
with simple missions, fewer units to control at once, so that they can
find their feet. The present incarnation of BC3000 doesn't do that,
and it need to be addressed. Its all very well to say "tough - its
complex", but so is flying an F22, and that why there are computers on
board to make it easier. 

Strategy games with their hexes, dice, and arcane little symbols were
complex and a niche market - until Westwood revamped the interface
with C&C. Once that was done, the player could interact so well with
the game that they could handle battles in realtime. All because the
interface made playing the game so simple that *anyone* could grab the
mouse and order troops around in seconds.


> 
> About hyperjumping, it's documented and simple.
> 
> 1. Select a target 2. alt+9
> 
> you're there.
> 

Alt-9 isn't exactly intuative, or easy to remember - what about ALT-H
for <huge leap> for "Hyperspace" ?  Or do I just have to stop playing
every time and look up the myriad of key commands? 


> I fail to see how switching to Navitron, Tactical, Logistix, Commlink
> etc loses coherence. They all do a specific thing or they would all have
> been merged into a single module.
> 

Well, you would Derek, because you know the games backwards and
forward ;) 

The division of modules make sense, but once you get inside them, tasks
don't seem to link to each other very well. eg, why not have a
hyperspace button in the Navitron which you can click on (that drops
you back to the main screen for the hyperspace jump)? its a pretty
logical conclusion to say that if you have just set a jump
destination, you may want to jump there. I know you'll say that
hyperspace jumping should be done from the bridge, but why not make it
available in several places in a context sensitive menu system? When a
jump coord is set, an onscreen option is available, and when no
destination is set, there would be no onscreen prompt.


> > I know you're going to say "Its all in the manual - its a complete
> > universe simulator - what did you expect?", but I certainly don't
> > expect to have to learn the manual just to be able to have a little
> > poodle around the game.
> 
> Well, then, it's not your type of game. I don't believe that there is a
> game in this genre where you don't have to read the manual. The time it

You're wrong - its *exactly* my type of game, but I'm not willing to
struggle with an unfriendly interface, because as you say, there are
other games to play coming out/already out. I'm one of the few people
I know who actually reads the manual *before* I start to play, but I
still don't like arcane key combinations.


> takes to read the instructions for a demo, you could be up and running
> and training in Xtreme Carnage. I guess it's all about the mindset. If
> you're out looking for the next best thing since X-Wing as far as ease
> of use,  you're not going to find it and I can assure you that games in
> this genre coming out in 1998-99 will only increase in functionality and
> hence complexity. Don't take my word for it....stick around and see.

Oh I know that - I've spoken at great depth to some of the people
involved, and everyone is aware of this problem. Everyone is working
hard to create complex, feature rich games with high standards, but
they are all aware of needing to make the interface sufficiently easy
to use. Note that I didn't say "simple" or "not complex", I said easy
to use.

> 
> > This will be your biggest problem - people will give up on the game
> > before getting to the good bits because it need so much hard work
> > before you *get* to the good bits.
> 
> SOME people you mean.
> 


Look Derek, do you want to sell BC 3000 or not? Are you just going to
sit there and say that you're not going to cater to a chunk of your
target market because it would mean having to rethink the interface?
I'm not saying rewrite the game or dumb down what your aims are for
BC3000, just make it easier and more intuative to control.


> > As a competent and hardcore gamer who gave up on the game, I can only
> > suggest that you give a lot of thought to how to give some kind of
> > spoonfeeding to the player, just so that he can do enough to keep his
> > interest alive until he becomes competetent enough with all the
> > systems.  Maybe make things selectable on screen with context sensitive
> > menus that lead you from a choice to the next set of logical choices?
> > Kind of like a "wizard" system to guide you around basic tasks?
> 
> Unfortunately, that's going to be difficult to do and again, BC3K will
> remain in a class all by itself.
> 

Well, the whole premise of the game was difficult - that didn't stop
you when people told you that it couldn't be done. Improving the
control of the monster game behind BC3000 will be the difference that
makes it a huge hit or a might have been. 


> > Or what about training missions? Right from ship handling, weapons
> > deployment, right up to "graduating" to a command?
> 
> These will be in BC:3020AD
> 
> ============================================================ There are
> dozens of threads on my website daily and when I was finished typing
> this post, I went over and grabbed a few. Feel free to go over to the
> COMMLINK section and read for yourself. Then you will see what I mean
> when I say that there definitely is a market for an indepth space sim
> and not just realistic sims such as F15, Longbow2 etc

Oh, I'm sure that BC3000 in its present form will generate a
subculture of websites and alt* newsgroups, and some people will play
it for years on end, but the same thing happens for Spectrum
emulators. If you really want to hit the mass market, *without* having
to compromise the game, then (IMHO) have a serious think about that
interface and what can be done to make the learning curve less
painful. 


-- 
 
 John - 

Gibbereeze - the best lurgid since sliced foob.