quote:
Original post by bishop_pass
Hase, I don''t get what you''re driving at here. If we''re talking about climbing, then we''re either talking about real climbing techniques, fake climbing techniques, or no climbing techniques.
I advocate real climbing techniques. Apparently you don''t. That means you either advocate:
- Fake climbing techniques, which to me seems stupid.
- Or no climbing techniques, which to me doesn''t sound like climbing.
So, which is it?
It all depends on who you want to reach. If you´re making a game "by climbers for climbers", then your simulation approach is valid. The problem however is that the more complex a game gets, the smaller the audience it reaches gets. For you a learning phase of twenty minutes seems acceptable, you are climber, you know your way around all the techniques and factors you want to see and use, so the most realism possible is obviously your goal. The same goes for all those who are interested in climbing, but never really got around to try it in real life.
If it´s not a commercial game and you don´t care about the size of your audience, skip the rest of this post.
When I design games however, I have to try and reach the target audience, more people if possible. And that usually means an interface which is easy to use and learnable in less than 30 seconds. And simple controls do not mean that the gameplay must lack depth, in an ideal case the interface is intuitive and simple, the depth comes from gameplay and content. Some of the best games I´ve ever played had no more than a handful of interface items, yet were able to deliver great gameplay.
Interface is always a means to an end, and should never be the challenge itself ("find the right button").
So in response to your question:
Real Climbing Techniques with detailed interface: will let you reach all the game-playing climbers and climbing-interested people. The game will probably be more about teaching climbing technique (which it will automatically do at that level of detail) than about reaching any predefined goal. The interface will be rather complex and involve the mouse and 20+ keys (which is not that much for a simulation - at least in comparison to the MS Flightsims). An interface approach I would feel more comfortable with would be to reduce the number of keys in favour of combinations, that way you could keep the number of keys low enough to be understood at first glance, and keep the number of interface items large enough to satisfy "simulation" players.
"Fake" Climbing Techniques: I assume that by that you mean a simplified version of the above, trying to get the basic idea of climbing together with simple gameplay. There would be clearly defined goals, maybe even opponents, the interface would consist of no more than four to six buttons plus the mouse (preferably less). The goals and dynamic challenges of the environment would make up a large portion of the gameplay, climbing is a means to an end. With a game like that you can reach a rather large audience, I´d place it somewhere between core and casual.
No Climbing Techniques: Arcade Play, Spiderman. Controls as intuitive and simple as possible, a console title. The task of getting the feeling of climbing across will be difficult, the interface will rely to some extent on move combinations. The goal will play a large role, as well as other game elements such as opponents (human or cpu).
I would go with what you call "Fake Climbing", abstracising a little, maybe keeping only a handfull of techniques. The interface as simple as possible (always KISS), rather using key combinations than a lot of different keys. I think this is especially important as the intended goal is to have more gameplay elements than climbing, which will add to the complexity anyways.
Also, the initial question was "will it be fun?", and I think game design is all about making a game as much fun as possible for as many people as possible. Easy accessibility does not negate deep gameplay. I know it´s much more difficult to find a simple solution to a complex problem, but in the end it´s usually worth it.
