Dominions 2 Demo Review

[PvK]

Originally posted by Arryn:
...
Then may I suggest a more "realistic" game such as Stronghold ...

Stronghold is terribly unrealistic. Couldn't stand all the silly unrealistic things in that one, unfortunately. (RTS time scale from hell, spearmen easily dismantling stone walls, etc.)

PvK

[ January 14, 2004, 18:16: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by PvK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arryn:
...
Then may I suggest a more "realistic" game such as Stronghold ...

Stronghold is terribly unrealistic. Couldn't stand all the silly unrealistic things in that one, unfortunately. (RTS time scale from hell, spearmen easily dismantling stone walls, etc.)

PvK

---

That's why I put realistic in quotes. I was being sarcastic.

The moment someone playing a game like Dom starts spouting words like realism you know the conversation has taken a turn into the twilight zone. I'll never understand how people can play fantasy games and expect anything other than ... fantasy.

Well, time to go see what lovely critter my Starspawn has summoned this turn.


Cheers!

[licker]

Originally posted by Arryn:


snip]

The moment someone playing a game like Dom starts spouting words like realism you know the conversation has taken a turn into the twilight zone. I'll never understand how people can play fantasy games and expect anything other than ... fantasy.

[snip]


Cheers!

Heh, better watch out how you use the term 'realism' around here. PvK and I have already crossed swords on this one once. Its not so much realism as it implies real world realism, as it is realism as it implies a logical order or a logical method. In the latter case there need be no influance from the history of the real world.

Anyway, the game mechanics should come first, the more 'logical realism' that can fit in the better, but historical arguements pro or con have no bearing on the final say of the game mechanics. Or at least they shouldn't...

[Arryn]

People keep forgetting the most basic rule of gaming:

Game balance trumps realism

How much fun would it be to play a nation that is famous for its mounted, armored troops (that cost a bundle to make and keep up), and then run across an opponent that has an army 3-6x the size of yours, armed with crossbows, that cost him the same amount and watch your precious knights die in a hail of bolts? Answer: not much at all (unless you're a masochist).

How much fun is it to play east front WW2 scenarios where the Germans have low-grade troops, low ammunition and very few tanks, versus Russians with veritable hordes of battle-hardened troops, near-limitless ammo, artillery, tanks, and aircraft? Realistic? You bet. But hardly fun. Unless your whole idea is to see how long it takes you to get wiped out. Which is why most historical wargames eschew reality for balance. They strive for accurate mechanics, but then skew the scenarios so that both players have a chance to win.

So how does this relate to Dom? Simple. Since you cannot make the archers cost what they need to cost to be "balanced" (not without giving you same people that are complaining now something new to gripe about), they keep the cost low and make them inaccurate. Realistic? No. Balanced? Yes.

Don't like having your own archers killing your troops? I agree it's annoying but life's tough. Deal with it. Understanding the game design will go a long way towards getting over your frustrations and seeing the beauty of the game.


Cheers!

[PvK]

Don't forget the other truism:

All truisms are false.



I think it's more important to realise that both gameplay and sensibility are important in any game that represents a situation, at least to many players.

A realistic mounted cavalry game could be fun if done well enough that there were ways to effectively play any force type offered to the players. Game designers who sacrifice realism as soon as they see any kind of difficulty seem pretty weak to me. After all, medieval knights were a very effective unit type for a very long time, for reasons which were very real. One doesn't have to nerf crossbows to make a game where the same would be true - it can also be done by correcting whatever was ahistorical about the game situation.

If one really doesn't care about realism, why even play representational games at all?

There are too many games out there where the design apparently starts out as "let's do a game about an interesting setting like X" and then as soon as anything gets in the way of fun, an arbitrary and illogical change is made, without even trying to find a logical change, even if all they'd have to do is ask someone who knows what the actual historical reason for something was.

In this case, there is no need to force missile units to have such a large chance of killing their own men. Even from a pure "fun" perspective, it's not fun to excessively kill your own men in silly circumstance, like when there is one limping enemy spearman running away and your archers kill a dozen of your own elite pursuers by taking pot shots at long range. That problem isn't helping anything.

The solution which has been suggested many times increases fun, reduces micromanagement, makes sense, is realistic and even historically accurate: Have archers only shoot when they will have near-zero chance of killing their own men!

It would also be possible to reduce the entire-army-missing spread of missile attacks, and have the chance of affecting a target in the hit square reduced - it would look a lot less silly, reduce unintended casualties, without making the weapons more effective than intended.

PvK

[Arryn]

Originally posted by PvK:
In this case, there is no need to force missile units to have such a large chance of killing their own men. Even from a pure "fun" perspective, it's not fun to excessively kill your own men in silly circumstance, like when there is one limping enemy spearman running away and your archers kill a dozen of your own elite pursuers by taking pot shots at long range. That problem isn't helping anything.

The solution which has been suggested many times increases fun, reduces micromanagement, makes sense, is realistic and even historically accurate: Have archers only shoot when they will have near-zero chance of killing their own men!

It would also be possible to reduce the entire-army-missing spread of missile attacks, and have the chance of affecting a target in the hit square reduced - it would look a lot less silly, reduce unintended casualties, without making the weapons more effective than intended.

PvK

Very well said. I agree with you 100%, oddly enough. And thanks for the reasoned and polite response.


Cheers!

[Fyron]

Exactly what I was talking about...

[PvK]

Yes, that's the one complaint of yours that I agree is an important issue, and the only thing I find really problematic in Dominions. There are some ways to avoid friendly fire, but it's still a hassle and a problem.

Aside from the issues of taste, you made some other good points too of course (e.g. castle defense stats should be clearly shown from the selection list) but those I agree with fall under "there are tons of details to be learned, many of which aren't (well) documented, but part of the fun is the continuous and unending adventure of discovering the enormous quantity of details."

PvK

[Johan K]

Fyron, when will we get the score?

[Fyron]

Still have not decided yet...