The devil is in the details. A deathmatch action game isn't an original idea, but the keen implementation shows that id Software does know something about game design, at least on an instinctual level.
Game design particulars such as control sensitivity, movement speed, jumping physics, weapon damage, and reload time are minute in themselves but nevertheless require a decision to be made. These hundreds of decisions add up to make or break a fun gameplay experience. A testament to my claim is that the tournament gaming scene has embraced Quake 3 ( http://www.thecpl.com/index.html?p=schedule ) as the deathmatch game of choice, while largely ignoring the competition. This is not by accident or politics but rather because Quake 3 has demonstrated to players that it has solid and balanced gameplay.
id Software may not have the most original ideas, but their implementation shows they are quite competent at game design. As they say, it's much better to have a good follow through with a bad idea than vice-versa.
dreaver
Regardless of which method you choose to go for, don't forget the principles of the Tao of Backup!
"Upon hearing this, the master fell silent."
dreaver
There is a common perception that the more complicated a system (game) is, the more strategical it gets. This is false - although the theoretical *potential* for strategy may be increased, other factors arise which bring the strategy back down to the level of "lesser", simpler games. A major factor is the ability of the mind to actually handle the different variables and factors when playing a game - rts game X may boast 5,000 different units, terrain impact on weapon accuracy, commanders for morale, and so on but can you actually keep track of all that while you're playing? Starcraft shines in this respect in that it there are a relatively small amount of units and things to keep track of compared to other, more complicated games but the strategy used at high-levels of play is enormous.
Strategy against a human opponent ultimately comes down to "I know that you know that I know..." so I'm going to do this instead. Think Princess Bride ("Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given... But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!"). Great complexity can arise from simple rules, chess being the obvious example. Quake III is another which looks deceptively simple (you have a gun, I have a gun, we shoot each other) but which there is actually a great deal of strategy - I'm going for the armor and I know you know I want the armor, so should I grab it now or wait for you to come in and ambush?
The definition of a good strategic game in my eye is the ability to circumvent whatever you (my opponent) intend to do *if* I know exactly what you're going to do. The counterpoint to this is that a bad game is one in which you can still get away with a tactic or strategy even if I knew in advance exactly what you were going to try - these are what get commonly labeled "cheaps" in games. Starcraft then fits very comfortably in the good game category - a rush is entirely beatable and doing so is actually a great risk against good players. The lack of strategy that the poster mentioned is completely due to his failing in using it.
Slashdot Mirror
The devil is in the details. A deathmatch action game isn't an original idea, but the keen implementation shows that id Software does know something about game design, at least on an instinctual level. Game design particulars such as control sensitivity, movement speed, jumping physics, weapon damage, and reload time are minute in themselves but nevertheless require a decision to be made. These hundreds of decisions add up to make or break a fun gameplay experience. A testament to my claim is that the tournament gaming scene has embraced Quake 3 ( http://www.thecpl.com/index.html?p=schedule ) as the deathmatch game of choice, while largely ignoring the competition. This is not by accident or politics but rather because Quake 3 has demonstrated to players that it has solid and balanced gameplay. id Software may not have the most original ideas, but their implementation shows they are quite competent at game design. As they say, it's much better to have a good follow through with a bad idea than vice-versa. dreaver
Regardless of which method you choose to go for, don't forget the principles of the Tao of Backup! "Upon hearing this, the master fell silent." dreaver
Not quite strong enough to stand a slashdotting however.
dreaver
There is a common perception that the more complicated a system (game) is, the more strategical it gets. This is false - although the theoretical *potential* for strategy may be increased, other factors arise which bring the strategy back down to the level of "lesser", simpler games. A major factor is the ability of the mind to actually handle the different variables and factors when playing a game - rts game X may boast 5,000 different units, terrain impact on weapon accuracy, commanders for morale, and so on but can you actually keep track of all that while you're playing? Starcraft shines in this respect in that it there are a relatively small amount of units and things to keep track of compared to other, more complicated games but the strategy used at high-levels of play is enormous.
Strategy against a human opponent ultimately comes down to "I know that you know that I know..." so I'm going to do this instead. Think Princess Bride ("Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given... But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!"). Great complexity can arise from simple rules, chess being the obvious example. Quake III is another which looks deceptively simple (you have a gun, I have a gun, we shoot each other) but which there is actually a great deal of strategy - I'm going for the armor and I know you know I want the armor, so should I grab it now or wait for you to come in and ambush?
The definition of a good strategic game in my eye is the ability to circumvent whatever you (my opponent) intend to do *if* I know exactly what you're going to do. The counterpoint to this is that a bad game is one in which you can still get away with a tactic or strategy even if I knew in advance exactly what you were going to try - these are what get commonly labeled "cheaps" in games. Starcraft then fits very comfortably in the good game category - a rush is entirely beatable and doing so is actually a great risk against good players. The lack of strategy that the poster mentioned is completely due to his failing in using it.
dreaver