quote: Original post by Wavinator

WOW! I never thought to look at sports, but this is a great example. I imagine for something like football or basketball the roles are similar enough in terms of actual actions (like throw the ball, or run/move with it) that you can give the player a subordinate role and let the AI play everyone else. In this example, everything depends on teamwork, so the player is performing a task that will help his/her group.

That''s exactly what happens. Properly implemented, the different co-players will act out their different roles on offense and defense, often exhibiting the characteristics/properties of the real-life athletes they''re modeled after. So a Shaquille O''Neal will be dominant in the post, score a lot and grab a lot of rebounds, a Patrick Roy will be phenomenal in goal, leaving your Roberto Carlos to take his patented free kicks (from basketball, hockey and international soccer, respectively).

quote:

Very good point. You show me that an individual task actually doesn''t need to be engrossing as long as the player is working towards some bigger picture. The gameplay in a basketball game, for example, doesn''t include dribbling the ball (in most I''ve seen, pls. correct if I''m wrong). This is a task that''s handled automatically.

Precisely. You''re never required to continuously press a "dribble" key or anything of the sort, though I advocate in my own designs more control, up to the user desired level. What this means is that there is a huge table of actions that the gamer can explicitly perform or have handled by AI, including aiming and timing on a jumpshot (so that the gamer simply presses the "shoot" button). Based on personal style preferences (and on a PC, on input device), various combinations of "responsibilities" can be selected, varying the skill requirements on the gamer. Thus the same game at the same difficulty setting can vary from painstaking detail to arcade run-n''-gun.

This allows the task to be as engrossing as the gamer wishes without detracting a jot from interactivity. So in a strategy sim, I would advocate being able to delegate certain responsibilities to lieutenants and subordinates. Obviously, there has to be some variability to this as well, which brings up the concept of training. In the Sports scenario, if your player has a high shooting rating, for example, then setting the aim and timing to automatic will yield good results; doing the same with a poor shooter will yield frustration. Coming back to the strategy game, the more training in tactics and management you invest in your commanders, the better the decisions they''ll take and the more responsibility you can delegate. This shifts the gamer''s focus from micromangement to the grand scale.