The global view

Discuss your new mods and themes here

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
DrFreedom
level1
level1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:57 pm

Postby DrFreedom » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:04 am

xander wrote:The other problem with a globe is that it would drastically change gameplay. Currently, if you are the USSR, you have to worry about your nukes being intercepted by Europe on their way to North America. On a real globe, this would not be a problem. While there are many people on these boards who would tell you that is a good thing, it would not be Defcon.

xander


Yes, it would change gameplay... but wouldnt and could'nt alliance's shift accordingly? You seem to be telling me that defcon does not = globalthermonuclearwar but rather Defcon = mercator projection thermonuclearwar, with adjusted nuke arcs to increase relevance of neighboring nation states.

"it would not be defcon"

well no, i dont think that is true. i think we would have the various defcon levels, bombers, subs, battleships, fighters, airbases, radar and silos and cities. scoring would be the same. that to me is pretty much defcon. tactics and strategy would have to change, to reflect a real globe. perhaps the defining element to you, about defcon, is unrealisitc nuke arcs. perhaps your fav element of defcon is having to fly bombers over europe to get them from america to russia. i guess if you feel that those are the defining elements of defcon, then you are convinced that i am somehow trying to attack the fundamental character of the game 'defcon' itself.

I do not see, for the life of me, why increasing the realisim on the order of having the game on a globe rather than on a mercator projection, would decrease the fun. i dont see how being able to use the north and south pole, somehow would rob the 'fun' of the game.

rather, i am attempting, seriously, to get a answer from guys who made the game, or from guys who are modding the game, as to why they did not pursue this path in the first place? was it deemed to damn hard to code? to bulky? was it no fun to be south america and be able to shoot nukes at other nations without 3rd parties being able to get involved?
wattro
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:00 am

Postby wattro » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:50 am

xander wrote:The other problem with a globe is that it would drastically change gameplay. Currently, if you are the USSR, you have to worry about your nukes being intercepted by Europe on their way to North America. On a real globe, this would not be a problem. While there are many people on these boards who would tell you that is a good thing, it would not be Defcon.

xander


who's to say that's not better?

also, instead of making the globe automatically spin, just give the user control of it (WASD and mouse)
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:36 pm

wattro wrote:who's to say that's not better?

also, instead of making the globe automatically spin, just give the user control of it (WASD and mouse)

I did not say it would be worse. I said it would not be Defcon. If someone wants to make a game of thermonuclear war that takes place on a globe, great. In fact, I believe that there is someone on the boards who is doing just that. Putting Defcon on a globe would alter gameplay, in that the arcs of nukes would be very different; it would alter the aesthetic of the game, which is based on the big boards in Wargames; and it would alter the feel of the game, which is that of a slightly cartoonish game about mass murder, rather than a simulation of Cold War nuclear strategy.

You are basically saying that if you have pawns that move forward one rank at a time, and queens that can move diagonally and horizontally, the game that you have is chess. Nevermind the fact that a queen has 18 hit points, captures are determined by die rolls, and the board is 12 squares one way, and 47 the other. This new game might be incredibly fun, but it isn't chess.

xander
wattro
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:00 am

Postby wattro » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:34 pm

xander wrote:
wattro wrote:who's to say that's not better?

also, instead of making the globe automatically spin, just give the user control of it (WASD and mouse)

I did not say it would be worse. I said it would not be Defcon. If someone wants to make a game of thermonuclear war that takes place on a globe, great. In fact, I believe that there is someone on the boards who is doing just that. Putting Defcon on a globe would alter gameplay, in that the arcs of nukes would be very different; it would alter the aesthetic of the game, which is based on the big boards in Wargames; and it would alter the feel of the game, which is that of a slightly cartoonish game about mass murder, rather than a simulation of Cold War nuclear strategy.

You are basically saying that if you have pawns that move forward one rank at a time, and queens that can move diagonally and horizontally, the game that you have is chess. Nevermind the fact that a queen has 18 hit points, captures are determined by die rolls, and the board is 12 squares one way, and 47 the other. This new game might be incredibly fun, but it isn't chess.

xander


I never said any of that. Nope. Not once. Not at all. The only thing I said is that it may make for a better game and suggested how they could work the globe.

That being said, putting it on a globe does not mean it necessarily becomes a simulation of cold war nuclear strategy. It can still be a slightly cartoonish game about mass murder (ie: a genocide-em-up).

Please don't make me call you an idiot. =)
Sirthomasthegreat
level3
level3
Posts: 466
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:18 am

Postby Sirthomasthegreat » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:15 pm

I understand both arguements, xander belives that it would not be defconbecause it is moddeled after the movie wargames which uses the map, not a 3d globe. However it would be cool to have a 3d globe that you can have subs go under north pole etc.

Thus, make a defcon where you can change whether you want 3d or 2d.
User avatar
djdemo
level1
level1
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:18 pm

Postby djdemo » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:30 pm

xander wrote:
wattro wrote:who's to say that's not better?

also, instead of making the globe automatically spin, just give the user control of it (WASD and mouse)

I did not say it would be worse. I said it would not be Defcon. If someone wants to make a game of thermonuclear war that takes place on a globe, great. In fact, I believe that there is someone on the boards who is doing just that. Putting Defcon on a globe would alter gameplay, in that the arcs of nukes would be very different; it would alter the aesthetic of the game, which is based on the big boards in Wargames; and it would alter the feel of the game, which is that of a slightly cartoonish game about mass murder, rather than a simulation of Cold War nuclear strategy.

You are basically saying that if you have pawns that move forward one rank at a time, and queens that can move diagonally and horizontally, the game that you have is chess. Nevermind the fact that a queen has 18 hit points, captures are determined by die rolls, and the board is 12 squares one way, and 47 the other. This new game might be incredibly fun, but it isn't chess.

xander


Maybe, but why not do it? Why disuade people from having a go - I'm all for playing on a polar project map with just NATO, US, USSR and China... of course it would alter the feel of the game, that is the idea for those that want to get a bit closer to the real thing.

The out of the box remains the same - so you get to play the DEFCON you want, and I get to play the DEFCON I want... I think that's a good thing!!!
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:59 pm

You are missing the point, though at this point I think that we are arguing semantics. I have not once said that a game that uses a globe and a more accurate simulation of physics would be a bad thing. I have said that such a game would no longer be Defcon. You keep saying that I would get to play the Defcon that I like, and you would get to play the Defcon that you like. Now, I believe that video games have the ability to be art. I believe the IV feel the same way (based upon the manifesto that they wrote several years ago, which came with my copy of Uplink for Mac). Can we agree that video games have the potential to be art, and that IV live up to that potential.

If not, we are done, because we are never going to see eye to eye.

If so, would you ask Michelangelo to create a copy of David for you, only with a fig leaf covering his penis, because nude men offend you? Would you ask Picasso to redo any of his blue period works for you because you like red better? We would both get what we want -- you get your own version of the art, and I get the originals.

A quote from the manifesto I referenced above:
IV wrote:The common assumption "Above all else, a game must be fun" is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED
It is also one of the reasons why the current "cutting-edge" games are still viewed as children's entertainment by the popular media. To say that any creative art form "must be fun" immediately limits the scope of any project attempted, and removes the possibility of games that have any real emotional depth or resonance - since this depth stems from conflict and drama, which are inherently negative emotions.

I read this as meaning that artistic considerations must take precidence over making the game "fun" (this could include visual aesthetics and gameplay, though "conflict and drama" are specifically referenced). IV made an artistic decision to use a flat map, and to use nukes that arc in the way in which they do. This may not have been the decision that you would have made, but it was their decision. If you are not happy with that decision, then you are more than free to make your own game.

Finally, just to drive home a point that I have been trying to make: I have never once said that a game played like Defcon, but on a globe, would be a bad thing. That would be a really cool game. I would probably play it. I have not said that a Defcon-like game with more accurate physics would be a bad thing. I probably wouldn't play it, because more accurate physics imply a more complicated game, but that doesn't mean it would be a bad game -- there are lots of games that many people consider good that I don't play, because they don't appeal to my aesthetically or emotionally or whatever. These are great ideas for games. However, they are not Defcon.
Last edited by xander on Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:50 pm

xander wrote:...because nuke men offend you...


I'm sorry to butt in at this point with something so trivial, but I did find this vaguely amusing. Possibly some kind of Freudian slip ;P
Here is my signature. Make of it what you will.
Image
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:11 pm

shinygerbil wrote:
xander wrote:...because nuke men offend you...


I'm sorry to butt in at this point with something so trivial, but I did find this vaguely amusing. Possibly some kind of Freudian slip ;P

I think that is the first time that I have ever thought "penis" and written "nuclear weapon." I would imagine that it generally goes the other way with most people :)

The correct word should have been "nude." I have fixed it. Thanks, shinygerbil.

xander
User avatar
DrFreedom
level1
level1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:57 pm

Postby DrFreedom » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:29 am

This is what i was looking for, a more interesting and spirited discussion.

Now, Xander, in the movie 'wargames' the nukes that they are concerned about being launched from russia, are indeed flying over the north pole. the projection that they are using on the 'big board' is a mercator projection of a globe. it is still a globe. to resolve this issue on a flat looking astheticly pleasing 2d map, here is what you do. units closer to the north pole move faster. units closer to the equator move slower.

if the core of the game, is the mercator projection, which seems to be your whole point... and trust me i can understand the asthetic issue you are mentioning, they why are you opposed to having that same mercator projection accuratly reflect the flight paths of bombers and nukes and subs using the world as a sphere? I guess i do not see your protest. you seem to belive that defcon is such an amazingly perfect creation, that to even suggest a global ideal, instead of a 'tube' shaped world without any poles, that we currently have, is a direct affront to any and everything introversion software stands for.

do you work for these guys or something? do you actually forsee a globe/accurate mercator projection game being somehow less fun? you seem to be of the mindset that 'defcon' IS a world that is without poles. i disagree. i think that a world without poles is a choice of programming convinence, and if that is the case, i would just like to know for my own sake... how much harder would it really have been to do a globe? how did the decision making process go down?

no one has yet answered this question. I was really hoping one of the makers might give a answer. have not seen it yet.
Last edited by DrFreedom on Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DrFreedom
level1
level1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:57 pm

Postby DrFreedom » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:32 am

xander wrote: IV made an artistic decision to use a flat map, and to use nukes that arc in the way in which they do. This may not have been the decision that you would have made, but it was their decision. If you are not happy with that decision, then you are more than free to make your own game.


Did they actually make a 'artistic' decision to do it this way, or a decision based on programming convience? would it look terrible the other way? thanks for giving me permission to make my own game, i was really hoping you would come along and grant that, but this seems to be the place to engage in this kind of discussion with professionals who designed this game, and the players who show enthusasiam for the product. however the classic 'make your own game' response often times = we really have no good answer, and you are most likely right. however we are proud so we wont admit it.

make your own game. how cute. i will consider that a concession to the point i have made. natch. :D
User avatar
Kuth
level4
level4
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Keele Imperium
Contact:

Postby Kuth » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:39 am

DrFreedom wrote:
xander wrote: IV made an artistic decision to use a flat map, and to use nukes that arc in the way in which they do. This may not have been the decision that you would have made, but it was their decision. If you are not happy with that decision, then you are more than free to make your own game.


Did they actually make a 'artistic' decision to do it this way, or a decision based on programming convience? would it look terrible the other way? thanks for giving me permission to make my own game, i was really hoping you would come along and grant that, but this seems to be the place to engage in this kind of discussion with professionals who designed this game, and the players who show enthusasiam for the product. however the classic 'make your own game' response often times = we really have no good answer, and you are most likely right. however we are proud so we wont admit it.

make your own game. how cute.


It's not permission, it's a suggestion.

If you're going to set out making a 3D globe game, a word of advice: don't copy defcon unless you plan on making it Freeware. The moment you try selling it someone here will prolly find out about it, get back to IV, and cause you and them significant harm.

I want to see more IV games.

But also a globeWar map would be fun- just not Defcon.
User avatar
DrFreedom
level1
level1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:57 pm

Postby DrFreedom » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:42 am

Kuth wrote:
But also a globeWar map would be fun- just not Defcon.


This is the mindset that i really, for the life of me, do not understand.

you do not think defcon is bombers, silos, subs, fighters, carriers, radar, airbases, and cities. with 6 balanced nations fighting a nuclear war to see who dies the least.

rather you think defcon is a mercator projection inspired earth, with no poles.

really?


oh and its not permission, its a suggestion?

hey guess what, its not a serious thanking, it's sarcasam.
User avatar
GeneticFreak
level3
level3
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:43 pm
Location: Indonesia
Contact:

Postby GeneticFreak » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:11 am

there were already round sphere games about wars and they honestly suck cause it gets overcomplicated / confusing/ dizzying
Examples: Superpower 2, M.A.D.
Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to fight
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:30 pm

Once again, DrFreedom, you have failed to read what I actullay wrote, and have inserted your own meaning into the words that I have written. Defcon is what it is. Some of the changes that you are suggesting would have force a fundamental shift in gameplay and aesthetics. Just to name two:
  • Defcon on a Globe -- this would effect both aesthetics and gameplay. If Defcon were played on a globe, it would depart from the flat-earth of "the big board," increase the level of complexity, and move away from game toward simulation. Gameplay would be effected, in that nukes would always be coming in straight to their targets, giving AA fewer opportunities to shoot them down. It would also give the already powerful Euro-Slavic alliance much greater power, by opening up an Arctic Ocean route to the US. It is also much easier to predict where nukes are going to go, as they would be on a straight line path to their targets. One of the challenges of Defcon is determining where nukes are going to go -- if there are two nukes coming in at me while I am playing Europe, and I think one is going to hit London while the other is going toward Africa, I am going to target the London nuke. On a globe, there would be no possible confusion, while on the flat map, it exists. There are other balance and gameplay issues at stake, but that is a beginning.
  • Defcon on a Mercator Projection, Realistic Flight-Paths -- as with Defcon on a globe, there are both aesthetic and gameplay issues. One of the biggest aesthetic issues is rectified, however -- that of the simple, flat interface. However, the arcing nukes were an aesthetic decision, at least in part. IV could just have easily had the nukes travel in a straight line from one target to another. This would have been just as realistic (that is to say, not very), but would have looked quite different. However, again, there are gameplay concerns. If you think that the paths are unpredictable now, this would make things even worse. Obviously, nukes in the southern hemisphere will curve south, and nukes fired from the north to northern targets will arrive sooner than nukes fired from the equator at northern targets (if fired from the same longitude), but how much sooner? How do you time your attacks? Also, once again, you would have the issue of nukes coming straight in, giving AA less chance to shoot them down.

I ask again, would you have Michelangelo modestly put a fig leaf over David's genitals? Would you have the blue period Picasso paint in red?

IV are artists, or at least strive to be. They made a series of artistic decisions with regards to Defcon and, rather than appreciating them, you are tearing them apart because they are not realistic enough. At some point, a line has to be drawn between realism and gameplay/aesthetics. You are never going to make everyone happy. Let us say, for a moment, that IV decided to make the paths more realistic. Do you really think that people would stop whining? Personally, I don't think they would. I think they would instead whine about the fact that fleets can cross the Pacific in 2 hours, or the fact that modern carriers can launch fighters at a much faster rate. So IV fix that, and people complain that nukes are too easily shot down, because in the real world there is no effective way to shoot down a ballistic missle. Am I being clear, or have I once again failed to make my point in a way that you can understand?

IV chose to place Defcon on one end of the spectrum between game and simulation. If you don't like what Defcon is, you are free not to play it. If you don't like what Defcon is, you are free to find another game, or create your own. No one is forcing you to play Defcon, in the same way that no one is forcing you to appreciate Prokofiev's piano concertos or the Mona Lisa.

DrFreedom wrote:however the classic 'make your own game' response often times = we really have no good answer, and you are most likely right.

No. I must disagree. I can see a game that accurately simulates a globe-Earth being a fun game. I am sure that many people would buy it and play it and love it. However, such a game would no more be Defcon than checkers is backgammon. They may use the same peices, but the rules are different.

xander

Return to “Mod Projects”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest