Prison Architect at Rezzed
-
bert_the_turtle
- level5
- Posts: 4795
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
- Location: Cologne
- Contact:
I think there are various "design tactics" that went wrong with subversion......
They almost all boil down, to designing a solution, before thinking up a problem.
Chris hinted at this, when he talked about developing all that tech, before having a core game idea.
It however runs much deeper.... its not just the investment in tech.... but also that i.e., they developed all those "counter-systems" before even having a clear idea how an attacker would... well, attack.
You see, in reality, this usually develops the other way around: First there are possible attacks - either already having happened, or identified as a possibility... and THEN countermechanisms are invented.
But not only is this order of thinking "unrealistic".... it also tends to go against typical design of a "game": In a good game (i dont specifically mean videogame), each of the opposing parties are in theory in a deadlock, and winning is then based on breaking this tie.
Perhaps, a better approach to at a later point in time look at subversion again, would be to forget all the tech and solutions you have, and imagine you start out from scratch. Then think of something to protect, and possible people who could attack it. Then come up with possible attacks, and then invent counters. Play this hypothetical "arms race" through a few times, and identify common methods of attack and defense. Basically, regarding methods of attack and defense, approach it as a GAME, NOT as a simulation...... the simulation part can then later come in, by.... well, simulating the attacks and defenses you came up with.
As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread: For gamedesign, you really dont want a simulation.... reality is boring. Rather, you'd want a game that gives the illusion of a "simulation of reality".
They almost all boil down, to designing a solution, before thinking up a problem.
Chris hinted at this, when he talked about developing all that tech, before having a core game idea.
It however runs much deeper.... its not just the investment in tech.... but also that i.e., they developed all those "counter-systems" before even having a clear idea how an attacker would... well, attack.
You see, in reality, this usually develops the other way around: First there are possible attacks - either already having happened, or identified as a possibility... and THEN countermechanisms are invented.
But not only is this order of thinking "unrealistic".... it also tends to go against typical design of a "game": In a good game (i dont specifically mean videogame), each of the opposing parties are in theory in a deadlock, and winning is then based on breaking this tie.
Perhaps, a better approach to at a later point in time look at subversion again, would be to forget all the tech and solutions you have, and imagine you start out from scratch. Then think of something to protect, and possible people who could attack it. Then come up with possible attacks, and then invent counters. Play this hypothetical "arms race" through a few times, and identify common methods of attack and defense. Basically, regarding methods of attack and defense, approach it as a GAME, NOT as a simulation...... the simulation part can then later come in, by.... well, simulating the attacks and defenses you came up with.
As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread: For gamedesign, you really dont want a simulation.... reality is boring. Rather, you'd want a game that gives the illusion of a "simulation of reality".
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests