Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warren Boudreau
While I have rarely found the need to disagree with Dr. Joe, on this point I disagree. Think of it this way. If your mother had never seen a football game before, would she understand it?
These games will never be so simple that someone can pick them up on the first viewing and still remain competitively stimulating to the teams. It is too much to ask. Unless you want to go full "BattleBots". I don't.
|
1998 -
Ball on rails = good. (1, 2, or 3 points)
Ball in center = VERY good. (2x multiplier)
All balls are colored, the color with the most balls scored is winning.
2000 -
Yellow balls in goal = good. (1 point)
Black balls in goal = very good. (5 points)
Robots on ramp = very good. (5 points)
robots hanging = GREAT. (10 points)
Troughs are color coded. Team with the most balls in their trough is winning.
I would argue that both of these games were simple, fun to play, and easily understandable to the casual viewer (and yes... to my Mom). They also yielded a wide variety of robots, and contained plenty of good design challenges.
It HAS been done before, and it CAN be done again.
Don't get me wrong, I know it isn't easy, and I know the game design process itself must be quite the undertaking. I just wish I had been a little older during 1998 and 2000.
Imagine playing the 2000 game this year. 15 seconds of autonomous mode, newer more "modern" robot technology.
Sounds like a blast to me.
John