Mission Editor, Replayability and Engagement Ranges (Map Sizes)

[junk2drive]

Originally posted by thewood:

So for the developers of PC, its really about getting the community to do the work for them. That irks me a little.

And if they didn't give you the ability to create you would be crying that the game has no replay value.

Game makers can't win...

[Madmatt]

Umm okay...This thread got a little surreal there for a moment but to answer the current question of "If XML file manipulation is so easy, why doesnt every developer add one in" is pretty simple. It really is a matter of focus, time, effort and resources.

So much post release support for a good game now comes from 3rd party involvement and modding that a lot of time a developer just expects that the community will take care of this stuff themselves.

Also, not every developer is really all that thrilled about their lifes work getting manipulated and changed at will either (yes, ego does enter in to this) so they arent always in a rush to spend time and effort to make it easier to do so. Doesn't modding give a game added longeivity? Sure, but it can be a matter of diminishing returns. The core game has to be good otherwise its not worth modding it so I would prefer a developer get the basics done first, and worry about extrenal mod support later.

I can look at the ToW structure and tell its going to be a modders dream though, it will just take some time to get this all established and working.

And lets be clear, this stuff (for example a XML based scenario editor) isnt easy to code either, it has to be tested, documented and run through the paces just like everything else and in this business, every second of interuption from the primary goal of getting the game done, really does count.

Madmatt

[thewood]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

Thewood, you begin to go on my nerves. No matter what anybody does it is the wrong thing, even if on two opposite things. You sound like me 4 years ago

On the Matrix forums you are the loudest crying for gazillions of some random features other than an editor.

However, you also lack understanding. Nobody ever said that developing an editor is easy just because you can start from an XML file. Developing an editor can still be very difficult even if you have XML. You turn people's words in their mouths. You sound like BFC 4 years ago

How you can say "programming resources wouldn't matter" is bejond me. Do you want every game in development right now published in 25 years?

Sorry didn't realize you had that much vested interest. I'll stop discussing it where you may accidently read it.

[Redwolf]

Another point that people are missing is that a structure like an XML-based one allows the developer to pick their fights.

There will always be some area of modding that the developers don't want to write an editor for.

Let's say the developer has a scenario editor. But no map editor. The open structure would allow people to write a map editor and the developer could give players the new PzMkGizmo that people wanted.

Let's say the developer provided map editor and scenario editor. Now somebody wants to mod all the armor values (assuming the developer is happy with them doing so). If the armor values are in binary file or even inside the executable there's not much to be done. If the armor values live in a loadable XML file somebody can do that.

[thewood]

Just a comment about sounding negative. I own Squad Assault and POA2, as well as several games recommended by people on this forum. Games with a lot of potential but never really lived up to the "realism" or hype that was claimed. I think that gives me the right to be a little skeptical whenever someone claims the ultimate in realism. I also have the right and motivation to say "the emperor has no clothes" at times.

PC (which I bought immediately) and ToW fall into that same category, a lot of potential. I think its very healthy for someone to continue to press for an answer on what easy means when someone else stands up and claims something is "easy" when it comes to modding vs. developer supplied.

I also think it is healthy to ask questions about why design decisions were made and point out inconsistencies in how different things were approached.

I have always appreciated BFC's answers on issues. They have been pretty simple:

1) Our research says it is or isn't so

2) We had to abstract because we didn't have resources to do it

3) We just don't have the resources to go back and do it or fix it.

These are very honest answers. We may not like them, but they are the answers. Even the answer about buildings not being usable was honest. They just didn't have time to do it. I'll argue the points on priorties and hope they fix it. I just hope they stick to that answer instead of claiming that buildings don't play a role in rural combat.

What I don't like and I don't think we should stand for is the rationalizing that developers do to justify what they did for other reasons. Saying XML is easy to mod may be relatively true for someone who has just coded an entire game, but for your average gamer, its not. Many developers lose sight of this. Yet even when its pointed out, the "easy XML" answer comes out. But in the end, the developer didn't build an easy to use editor because either they were under time pressure or they are trying milk more money out of the game. We, in the end, do that work for them.

For example, the easy XML in PC. First you stated that XML was easy. Then you agree that programming resources may not allow you to build a gui editor due the difficulty in doing it. Then you promote the fact that a mere user actually wrote a good editor in less than three weeks. Now tell me, which way is it. It can be claimed that I am twisting the words, but I am honestly confused. I look at the way to build a mildly complex scenario in PC and couldn't get it to run through XML editing. Even though I know better, I wouldn't mind the "we'll get to it later" response if Matrix didn't have a penchant for abandoning projects.

[thewood]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thewood:

So for the developers of PC, its really about getting the community to do the work for them. That irks me a little.

And if they didn't give you the ability to create you would be crying that the game has no replay value.

Game makers can't win... </font>

[junk2drive]

Thank you for being civil.

I have to agree somewhat with some of your points. I am spoiled by CM's editors and modability. I never tried doing anything with a game other than playing until CM. I can see the potential with ToW and PC.

AFA xml with PC, I googled for xml tutorial, found a .org, did some trial and error, and played a modified battle within a few hours.

bmp and dds graphic skins are similar to other games and the artistic types will have fun.

The guy that made the scenario editor surprised everyone. A similar thing happened with SPWAW recently and that game has been around forever. It just takes someone with the skills and desire to put it together. That aint me, lol.

My hope for all games is to have some user friendly tools to make the game worth more than few hours of playtime. Whether we can all use those tools or not is up to the game maker. IMO their future as niche businesses depends on it.

[thewood]

What happened with SPWAW recently? It had a good scenario and map editor from the beginning. It always lacked an OOB editor until a few years after its release. I really don't care too much about OOB editting as long as I have faith in the developer doing some decent research and giving enough variety to do more than a three month period in a specific region.

btw, you're welcome.

[Madmatt]

Just a reminder guys, this is a Theater of War forum, not a PC or SPWAW forum so if you want to discuss those games, you need to do it on their forums, not here.

Madmatt

[junk2drive]

Sorry

I had at least one paragraph that was generic.

@thewood, email sent.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by thewood:

You are completely misunderstanding my views. I want to be able to build scenarios without having to jump into an XML file. My point is that if a user was able build an XML editor in less than three weeks part time. Why didn't the developer just do it.

Madmatt answered this earlier. Because if it comes from the developer you have to go through all the shebang of testing, releasing blah blah blah. It has to meet quality standards and you generally don't have the option to give out the source code.

A user-supplied utility has a lot more freedom to throw a 3-week piece of code in front of the wolves and just see what happens. You cannot generally predict how much interest there is, maybe nobody cares and you just stop. You cannot predict what interested people's quality requirements are. Maybe they take a few annoying bugs and are happy anyway. Maybe they press, you give out the code and somebody else completes it. You cannot predict this. The user-supplied toolmaking has the flexibility to navigate through this on the fly. The original game developer does not, he can't just give out things that have a 50% chance of being considered junk.

It is my opinion that wargames so far have not exploted these options nearly enough.

And if you think it's unrealistic just look at what's happening with all the Quake clones. People write full mods including AI, they make total conversions, editor, everything. People get jobs in the gaming business out of this (you would think they'd know better after actually coding something like it but anyway).

[Darren J Pierson]

As just a joe blow gamer, I would like to have a nice designer created editor that uses a gui that I can use w/o a lot of hassle. Hmm. A hassle free user interface? That's a revolutionary new concept.

If one wants to get more users into modding, a well done mod tool would be helpful. As a designer, I can certainly see the attraction of having the community do it - but since I'm not a developer but a customer I would like to have the pros do it for me.

[76mm]

Another request for map and scenario editor.