Subject: Re: Why do people believe something is fun? Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:49:55 GMT From: gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) Organization: Indigo Newsgroups: comp.games.development.design In article , "Peter J. Dobrovka" wrote: >To give this thread a starting point I will tell you a recent story: > >A designer colleague had the idea of a transport simulation game which looks >like railroad tycoon at first glance but is more based on logistical >objectives like "raise the steel mill's input storage to 80% without >exceeding 90%". > >The gameplay he imagined was that the player has to lay tracks and buy the >train - and then he should drive the train like in a train simulator >including loading and unloading process to 'train' the train for its route. > >Nice idea but I think this train driving stuff is obsolete. What do you >think? Worked great in Railroad Tycoon (though the system was a bit less elaborate). It's interesting to compare RT with Civ. In both cases there are tangible units operating tactically, as a game representation of overall strategic and logistic factors. What's important is that Sid Meier did NOT try to represent the strategic and logistic factors in the most *accurate* way, or in the most *transparent* way - he tried to represent them in the most *tangible* way, as little trains or phalanxes. There's a lesson to be learned there. Maybe the effect of tangible units is to change a game from a simulation of something real, into something real of its own self. Abstractly, I project force from a centre of population in Civ, but in the game there also really is a little unit walking around. Both interpretations are true, and both are what make the game what it is. Gerry Quinn -- http://bindweed.com Puzzles, Arcade, Strategy, Kaleidoscope Screensaver Download evaluation versions free - no time limits Check out our new arcade-puzzler "Bubbler"!