One of the problems with this concept is that “Gaming history” is the thing well-known or at least easily researchable and since GDT follows it very, very closely you can already know which consoles are going to be popular, and which of them are not going anywhere. I usually don’t even bother developing anything for Dreamcast or Xbox 1.
I don’t think such things are easliy implemented, but it would be cool if you can develop a game that can “make” a console, so that Dreamcast would be successful and Sega won’t go out of hardware business (and would eventually buy Microsoft; just imagine - Sega Office for Sega Windows).
But then again, I basically want single-player EVE Online about game dev =)
I was thinking the same thing, personally. I don’t find a problem with how it is now. I enjoy reliving gaming history, because I wasn’t alive for a good deal of the ‘classics’. I do completely understand where you’re coming from though. If we could actually change the course of gaming history.
I see what you mean but we did this on purpose. Your real life gaming knowledge gives you an advantage in the game because you can tell how things will pan out. I know that a more dynamic system is also interesting but it’s also much much harder to implement something like that and for a small game we felt that sticking with ‘history’ is the better option.
A dynamic system WOULD be awesome. Absolutely blow me out of the water. But it’s very understandable how difficult it would be to implement so many different scenarios taking place with just one game sale changing whether Sony buys out Sega and creates the Sony PlayCast.
Or maybe instead of dynamic system there would just be a alternate reality, where market shares, names and lifespans would be random ? This mode of course couldn’t use hiscores, but might add a lot of replayability
I think the next step is to make other companies “living,” having them compete with the player, or even be played by the player. That and adding a branding system would make GDT a completely different animal.
Man, that would be totally awesome. That would be really cool maybe in like a new game + sort of thing. 1st play through is true to history, and on your future playthroughs you can actually effect the success and failure of some consoles, maybe even develop relationships with hardware publishers based on that (cheaper Development costs as a reward for loyalty to a console?)
Agreed… I hope you guys make enough profit off this game, so that you can really push the boundaries with GDT2. Brand strength could determine sales, and how your games design and tech points compare with similar games released by competitors could determine scores… If GDT 2 let players run Sega or Atari, and lead it into the promise land of nth generation consoles, that would be something.
The only thing I would try with this incarnation of GDT is tweaking the scoring system… I really don’t like the - categories. But I don’t know if taking them out would break the game.
Disclaimer: in general I don’t mind how this particular part of game functionality or think that you “absolutely should must change it now”. That said, your argument is not very strong. I have two points to address:
After playing the game a few times you’ll know that regardless (which is good because it is educational and stuff, but bad in terms of replayability)
Referencing external knowledge is slightly similar to reading wiki to understand how scoring system works. It is a system that rewards you for going outside of the game.
Random success/failure of consoles not affected by player might seem like reasonable solution but you’ll have to introduce a certain context so that player will be able to judge whether console might succeed or not. Even such a relatively simple system won’t be that easy to design and add to the game.
Still, it is fun to replay gaming history once, so in a close-to-a-perfect world the game would have a random/dynamic mode and a classic one.
I definitely agree on the modes thing. Probably the best solution to this. To be able to switch between the scripted classic mode, simply adding games to the market- or a completely alternate path of the game development culture, or even gaming culture in general. It would be very interesting to see what would happen. It almost gives an odd commentary on how the gaming culture can change with just one more hit game in demographic, or console X.
Well, what holds my iagination that its a java game for 9$ and it already offers around 20h of fun. Which is a good deal.
Of course it could be nice to twist the mechanic to be it more repeatable, but then thats a lot of time for GH, maybe better is to fix the “problems” and then do some other games.
To come back to GameDev with wider perspective.
As for imho more important problems:
the whole rating system, so it will be a little more intuitive and forgiving, allowing to make really your own games, but for price that it will have a very limited (but dedicated) playerbase and the sales will not be great. Something like Everyone Pirate Strategy on Gameling since why not.
Make the rating system a little more feedback, its ok that players need to learn what works, but there should be hints, how it works.
Fix MMOs and make them less pure win.
Twist own console, allow to specify what its for best, or if its portable, or for kids or adults. And allow to have many of them running.
And this is probably the most important, since it affects your 1st&2nd walkthought.
After that are this things:
Order subcompanies to make games for ya.
Introduce AI competitors. And allow player to buy them 1by1.
Second designer team to make 2 games at one time.
Add semi randomness, like with each walkthough the history will be a little different even thou similar. Gameling or PS2 will always be a success, but sometimes bigger, and othertimes shorter.
Allow player actions to affect gameworld, like if you release 9+ games on dreamvast it will stay longer.
Some kind of MP?
But that is a big design jump. Maybe indeed something should be left for sequel.
Dont think it would be too complicated. The way it works in Gamebiz 3 is that a good game for a platform increases its sales.You can keep a platform alive by making 10/10 games for it. In GDT good games could increase the market share.
For RPG’s they are engine, and AI. Putting in any time, or any advanced systems, into these categories hurts your score. When really having adaptable enemies and smart companions would be a godsend in an RPG like Dragon Age or even Skyrim. In real life I could write dialogue that would be perfect for a simulation racing game. I would make a story that led to a racing tournament with relatives on the line… Adding things like that to my simulation racing game might be unconventional, but that should be rewarded in the game, not punished.
I think adding anything to a game, regardless of genre will improve it. There should be plateaus to reach for the + categories, that progressively get higher with each in game year, as the competition gets better. Not scoring high enough in story telling, should hurt my RPG’s score. BUT If I do score high in those key + categories, everything else that I implement into the game just makes it more of an original experience.
Because of the - categories I am forced to effectively make the same games over and over again with slightly better technology implemented every time… and that’s another thing, you should be punished if you can’t fully implement the systems that you set out to put in your game (world economy, rich backstory, etc). Only finishing them to 77% or whatever should REALLY hurt your game, because they aren’t finished. They are essentially broken systems, which is the main thing that holds games back in real life.
It shouldn’t matter what you implement, as much as it matters HOW WELL it is implemented.
Well simply keeping the consoles around is one thing. But if you’re creating games for a console, and therefore increasing the sales, then that company will stay around longer and thrive. This may trigger them to buy out another, not so profitable, company and completely change the course of gaming history. Just making them sell better and for longer IS a very easy thing to implement. But i’m talking about something much larger, and much more complicated.
I’d actually love this. Of course, you couldn’t do something against technological evolution and consoles would be discontinued over time.
In fact, it would be awesome to completely change the history as we actually know it. For example creating a smash-hit on a console would increase its sales and come back into the market by full force. I think market shares isn’t really exploited in the game, and that would be cool. Saving the Dreamcast by doing a 9.5 game with 5M sales would be quite fantastic.
GDT should really have the “Branching Storyline” feature
