Alright maybe you can solve my problem...
I have a tech tree in my strategy game that is pretty straight forward.
For instance, you have about 5 or 6 techs that improve your money output in some way, and then 5 or 6 that improve science and discovery, construction, and farming.
The question is, does it subtract from game play if I don't give each technology a cool name?
Do I have to make the first money output something like -
"Reading and Writing"
then make the next one
"Education Systems"
etc in order to make it interesting?
Or can i just say "Money Upgrade 1" then change the 1 to 2, 3, or 4... etc.
I know I should probably name them, as to keep the game a bit more interesting, but I wanted your guys's opinion on this.
ID:265296
 Sep 9 2004, 8:29 pm
|
|
Unique names do look better, and might make it a small amount more interesting. However, there is anothing issue at hand here as well. I find that in most games with complicated tech trees I cannot remember what is what unless I play the game too much, and a single name that only has different numbers to show how far along it is would be much easier to remember.
| |
Indeed, I to believe unique names to be better but if you ae looking to make it easier to remeber a system like this could be worked out by setting a label at the end of each name referncing it's category...
Economic Systems: Hunt and Gatherer(ES:+0)--->Trade and Barter(ES:+1) --->Standard Money and coinage(ES:+2). | |
That's probably the best option, though I wouldn't bother using acronyms.
Something like this perhaps: The Wheel (Science +1) ... Writing (Science +5) Libraries (Science +6) ...and all the way down to: Theory of quantum physics (Science +? - bonus amount unknown, because it changed when we tried to observe it) | |
Theory of quantum physics (Science +? - bonus amount unknown, because it changed when we tried to observe it) *chuckles* The bonus might even cease to exist when we're not thinking about it. | |
Named looks far better unless its unpractical. Consider two games in contrast, EverQuest and say, Dark Age of Camelot.
In EverQuest you have Backstab, Chaotic Backstab, and some other forms of backstab. In Dark Age of Camelot, you have Backstab I, backstab II, Backstab III. In EverQuest you have Minor Shielding, Major Shielding, Arcane Shielding. In DAoC you have Earthshield I, Earthshield II or some equivelant. I found it extremely annoying to play with, when used to some more fleshed out names. In some situations the system DAoC uses is appropriate, but when trying to add a feeling of environment and theme, names can help a great deal (O'Kiels Flickering Flame for example, leaves room to wonder about some magician who invented the flickering flame conjuration). | |
Jon Snow wrote:
Do I have to make the first money output something like - Yes, only you should put some more thought into the names. Much better would be simply "Writing" followed by "Education". Note that in our history, education was limited to only a few for a long time due to the great expense of books; it wasn't until printing presses came around that education became more attainable. And books themselves were rarer before the invention of paper. A better progression might look like this:
| |
Seriously though, named skills look better than "1, 2, 3" to me. It makes the skill-building thing come off as less of a treadmill than it might be.