The two big issues that occur to me are competition vs. co-operation,
and thrills vs. skills. There's also an issue of game length.
There can be good games anywhere along the competition/co-operation
spectrum. For example, first-person shooters can be great, but tend to
be entirely competitive, while sim games can be great, but are totally
co-operative. Ultimately, Globulation 2 is a competitive game in that
each team wins or loses on its own - alliances aren't considered. On
the other hand, alliances can exist and make for much more interesting
gameplay. It's also competitive in that the aim of the game is always
to beat the other team, rather than (say) to reach some part of the
map.
Glob2's scripting language can handle some non-competitive goals, but
this is quite rudimentary and rarely used.
Thrills vs. skills is an area of gameplay that gets less attention. Is
it better to have a game where the gameplay is more subtle and varied,
where every move has a thousand counters, and every counter a thousand
weaknesses, or a game where you build up a great army and smash your
unsuspecting enemy in one strike?
Finally, game length seems at first like a minor side-issue, but I
think
it's a good way of getting at the way a game should work. Obviously,
game length depends on things like how many players there are and how
large your map is, but a game designed to last 5 minutes (e.g. Tetris)
will work differently to one that lasts five days (e.g. Freeciv).
With all that said, here are my opinions about how this should apply to
Glob2:
Globulation 2 is an ultimately competitive game, but one where players
are encouraged to explore the selfish value of co-operation. I like
this emphasis in the game, and in my opinion we should stick to it for
the time-being. It would be interesting to look at properly
co-operative gameplay further down the road, but not until we've got
competition done right.
Personally, I've never been that interested in thrills, so I'm always
going to prefer a game that gets my mind going over one that gets my
heart going. Globulation 2 suits me because, although there's
randomness in places, there's no true element of chance in what you do
-
for example, Wesnoth always bugged me no end when I'd built a unit up
for three games only to lose him to a vastly inferior unit that
happened
to get lucky. I think Globulation 2 has room to grow in terms of
complexity, but I'd like to see it expand the ideas it has now rather
than add new ones. For example, fruit is getting quite interesting,
especially with the idea of trading fruits. I'd like to see more rules
about the effects of an (un-)balanced diet on a glob, and how two teams
(even opposing teams?) can benefit through trade.
And on game length: in my experience, games of Globulation 2 feel like
they take about an hour or so, which seems about right for the way the
game works. That gives you enough time to grow a town or two, explore
your world, get to know your enemy, and eventually destroy him (or be
destroyed by him). One standard problem that Globulation 2 doesn't
currently have too much of a problem with is the "ragged end" of games.
With most games that involve an aspect of strategy, you can tell which
side is going to win about a third of the way through the game, but you
still have to wake through the rest of the game to find out. This can
be quite dull, and I'm glad Glob2 doesn't fall for that trap. However,
Glob2 does have a problem with mopping up after an enemy that's
essentially been defeated. I'm not exactly sure what the rules are for
when an enemy is considered to have lost, but this might be as simple
as
tightening those rules (e.g. globs trapped inside an overgrown building
shouldn't count towards the team still being active), or might require
some extra ways of attacking that are useless against even a weak
defence, but can quickly destroy a defenceless team.
- Andrew