Imagine an older game that you like, and that game has specific attributes that separate it from its genre. Over time those attributes were adopted as distinctive traits of the game; so I loosely use the word tradition to describe these traits.
A direct analogy would be minecraft’s dated blocky graphics. It is a distinctive trait of minecraft. Yet from a mapmakers perspective, it can be seen as an undesired flaw; an imperfection. Its something that can be fixed if you were re-creating the game. Yet, people love this traditional attribute of minecraft.
(Back to the original game subject) So, you set out to re-create this old game that you like; to fix the most grievous issues that prevent playability, to maximize code performance and to polish the visuals. As a mapmaker, you even add in a few extras that enhances the game concept, while not interrupting the continuity of the game.
Then comes the dilemma, would you fix the attributes that players find as distinctive to the game? Unlike minecraft, what if you highly suspect those distinctive attributes were not desired by the original creator? Furthermore, friends see the attributes as serious broken flaws that absolutely needs fixing.
Yes, you could fix these attributes. But in doing so, you would destroy these distinctive traits.
This shouldn't be much of a dilemma, I think. I'll make you an ASCII flowchart.
What kind of map do you want to create?
| \
| ---------------------> A map most players will like ------\
| |
\/ \/
A map I personally like Will changing/removing these features make the map more fun for the average player?
| __________________/ |
| No \/
| | Yes
\/ \/ |
Do you like these features? ----> Yes -------> Keep features |
| |
| \/
\________________ No ______________________________________> Remove features
Then comes the dilemma, would you fix the attributes that players find as distinctive to the game? Unlike minecraft, what if you highly suspect those distinctive attributes were not desired by the original creator? Furthermore, friends see the attributes as serious broken flaws that absolutely needs fixing.
Lets talk about dawn of war I and II for a second. I loved dawn of war. It was the perfect blend of superfast rts action (quite a bit faster then a six-pool zerg rush) while maintaining classic base building and thus strategic decisions. Well, DoW I was left to rod in favor of developing DoW II. This game would abolish this feature that wouldn't was not intended to be in a table top game and just a relic of of the old rts formula. It was only there because the devs didn't find a better way in the first place.
Which feature? Base-building.
I played the beta and didn't touch DoW II since. The story above as to why it was removed is my speculation. But my theory is, that relic must have been surprised by DoW I's success and that they did not understand its appeal at all. I think they wanted to make a game that was very close to a table top game, with focus on using terrain and tactics and thought that base building was only distracting from what made their game fun. DoW III will have base building again from what I can tell from the early trailers.
Why am I telling you this? The thing the designer perceives as a flaw may have had an appeal the designer did not understand in the first place, so be careful with ripping out such things.
But by the end of the day there is an even more important consideration - I think - then what the original designer wanted or what the players want: Will YOU enjoy working on it if you reimplement the mechanic and stash your idea? I presume you are not doing this for money, but as a hobby. Keeping up your own motivation trumps every other reason then in my opinion.
Else one corporate takeover or another has replaced the teams on the project and they are trying to fit in the niche without the vision and therefore having to relearn through iteration.
Be sure to check out the extension mod: Hots Custom Map support on NA and EU, Despite the name it greatly expands the roster of options for the default 3 races and is updated all the way to NCO.
That is possible, too. But which transition do you mean? DoW I -> DoW II or DoW II -> DoW III?
I know that Soulstorm was by another studio, but I don't have that many issues with Soulstorm as others have (besides the abyssmal patch support). I also know THQ bankrupted a while ago.
Or was there another team within Relic working on DoW II?
edit:
Ok, I did some research. I presume with hostile take over you mean the one by THQ some months before the release of DoW I. The transition from DoW I to DoW I:WA is the only one with a major disconuity in design and balance teams.
I guess this supports the theory of the devs not understanding the vision in the first place, given the low presence of the original designers in the add-ons. On the other hand: they had years to relearn these things before DoW II.
Nontheless the take over is an interesting detail I wasn't aware of before.
sidenote: funny find: Balance designer on Dark Crusade and lead balance designer on Soulstorm: Tae Yeon (David) Kim.
Thank you for all of your replies everyone. A particular thank you for the cute flowchart : )
Of the two choices available, I will create a third choice.
I will keep the artistic interpretation of those attributes, for a time. It may rally a player-base who appreciates those distinctive attributes. Overtime, I will introduce innovation, perhaps in a separate map if needed. After all, traditions were formed slowly and they also evolve slowly. So, I will approach this phenomenon in the same way that it was originally created.
I think this thread will be helpful for anyone else who has a desire to raise the dead.
I need advice.
Imagine an older game that you like, and that game has specific attributes that separate it from its genre. Over time those attributes were adopted as distinctive traits of the game; so I loosely use the word tradition to describe these traits.
A direct analogy would be minecraft’s dated blocky graphics. It is a distinctive trait of minecraft. Yet from a mapmakers perspective, it can be seen as an undesired flaw; an imperfection. Its something that can be fixed if you were re-creating the game. Yet, people love this traditional attribute of minecraft.
(Back to the original game subject) So, you set out to re-create this old game that you like; to fix the most grievous issues that prevent playability, to maximize code performance and to polish the visuals. As a mapmaker, you even add in a few extras that enhances the game concept, while not interrupting the continuity of the game.
Then comes the dilemma, would you fix the attributes that players find as distinctive to the game? Unlike minecraft, what if you highly suspect those distinctive attributes were not desired by the original creator? Furthermore, friends see the attributes as serious broken flaws that absolutely needs fixing.
Yes, you could fix these attributes. But in doing so, you would destroy these distinctive traits.
Would you? Should you?
I would go on a case by case basis. Also depends if it is fixing something broken or changing an artistic interpretation.
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg
This shouldn't be much of a dilemma, I think. I'll make you an ASCII flowchart.
What kind of map do you want to create?
| \
| ---------------------> A map most players will like ------\
| |
\/ \/
A map I personally like Will changing/removing these features make the map more fun for the average player?
| __________________/ |
| No \/
| | Yes
\/ \/ |
Do you like these features? ----> Yes -------> Keep features |
| |
| \/
\________________ No ______________________________________> Remove features
@Mozared: Go
😍
Lets talk about dawn of war I and II for a second. I loved dawn of war. It was the perfect blend of superfast rts action (quite a bit faster then a six-pool zerg rush) while maintaining classic base building and thus strategic decisions. Well, DoW I was left to rod in favor of developing DoW II. This game would abolish this feature that wouldn't was not intended to be in a table top game and just a relic of of the old rts formula. It was only there because the devs didn't find a better way in the first place.
Which feature? Base-building.
I played the beta and didn't touch DoW II since. The story above as to why it was removed is my speculation. But my theory is, that relic must have been surprised by DoW I's success and that they did not understand its appeal at all. I think they wanted to make a game that was very close to a table top game, with focus on using terrain and tactics and thought that base building was only distracting from what made their game fun. DoW III will have base building again from what I can tell from the early trailers.
Why am I telling you this? The thing the designer perceives as a flaw may have had an appeal the designer did not understand in the first place, so be careful with ripping out such things.
But by the end of the day there is an even more important consideration - I think - then what the original designer wanted or what the players want: Will YOU enjoy working on it if you reimplement the mechanic and stash your idea? I presume you are not doing this for money, but as a hobby. Keeping up your own motivation trumps every other reason then in my opinion.
PS: thumps up for the ascii flow chart <3
@zuPloed: Go
Else one corporate takeover or another has replaced the teams on the project and they are trying to fit in the niche without the vision and therefore having to relearn through iteration.
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg
@Mozared: Go
That flow chart...
http://www.sc2mapster.com/assets/nolanstars-textures/
Be sure to check out the extension mod: Hots Custom Map support on NA and EU, Despite the name it greatly expands the roster of options for the default 3 races and is updated all the way to NCO.
@DrSuperEvil: Go
That is possible, too. But which transition do you mean? DoW I -> DoW II or DoW II -> DoW III?
I know that Soulstorm was by another studio, but I don't have that many issues with Soulstorm as others have (besides the abyssmal patch support). I also know THQ bankrupted a while ago.
Or was there another team within Relic working on DoW II?
edit:
Ok, I did some research. I presume with hostile take over you mean the one by THQ some months before the release of DoW I. The transition from DoW I to DoW I:WA is the only one with a major disconuity in design and balance teams.
I guess this supports the theory of the devs not understanding the vision in the first place, given the low presence of the original designers in the add-ons. On the other hand: they had years to relearn these things before DoW II.
Nontheless the take over is an interesting detail I wasn't aware of before.
sidenote: funny find: Balance designer on Dark Crusade and lead balance designer on Soulstorm: Tae Yeon (David) Kim.
edit2: sorry for derailing this thread like this.
Thank you for all of your replies everyone. A particular thank you for the cute flowchart : )
Of the two choices available, I will create a third choice.
I will keep the artistic interpretation of those attributes, for a time. It may rally a player-base who appreciates those distinctive attributes. Overtime, I will introduce innovation, perhaps in a separate map if needed. After all, traditions were formed slowly and they also evolve slowly. So, I will approach this phenomenon in the same way that it was originally created.
I think this thread will be helpful for anyone else who has a desire to raise the dead.
Instructions unclear. Cat jumped on the moving fan and won't come down.
In short go by a feature by feature basis of was it lacking or broken else was it popular.
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg