Tears of Blood said:
Me, obviously.
It's not balance.
I'm not sure what you'd call it then... but the idea that a game must model working economies when the game is not about that is somewhat failing to realize the point. The game's mechanics are to support the game itself.
An example of this would be the difference between Triple Triad in FF8, and Tetra Master in FF9. In both games, the minigame was completely optional. You did not need to play it to get to access or 'defeat' any content in the game, it was merely one avenue in order to do so... but doing so garnered rewards and was worth the time spent mastering it. This is a good application of a minigame. The minigame supports the main gameplay, but does not overshadow it, nor does it become required to master an entire seperate game just to play the game you're there to play.
Tetra Master, on the other hand, is a complete waste of time. It is completely pointless... the only reason to play Tetra Master in FF9 is because you enjoy playing Tetra Master. There is no reward, there is no benefit. There isn't even really a story. There's just the minigame, and that's it. This is -bad- minigame design.
The villa is a minigame that's quite simple. Put money in, get money out later. That money is used to upgrade weapons and armor, and as well the villa, if you like. It's a good game as it is not necessary, gives you benefits (cheaper armory and stuff you actually use, as well as a constant source of income), but you don't need to 'beat the villa' in order to progress in the game. As well, for making money, the game provides alternatives. You could go around and collect all the treasures in the world, buy all the stuff you like, and never touch the villa.
Or something in between.
But would making the villa economic game 'deeper' improve the actual game of Assassin's Creed 2? Would it make the game better by making the action adventure of the game more fun?
An example of this phenomenon working against a game in many players' eyes is Brutal Legend. A lot of people were put off by the RTS elements of the game. They felt that it should have remained a hack'n'slash sandbox game, and the RTS stuff was simply too complex and got in the way of what they felt the central game should have been. You -can- make a game be poorly received by adding in irrelevant minigame content that does not enhance the central experience or intrudes upon it.
When a developer makes a game, he has to make it appeal to as many people as possible so that more people will like it and be willing to buy it. Not only that, but they will tell their friends that it is good and that they should also buy it. That is the incentive. You have to make the game fun to play for a large number of people. This is why "good" and "bad" games exist, and there is a rating system.
Yes, but 'fun to play for a large number of people' doesn't mean that making a kitchen sink of disparate and irrelevant game mechanics is the way to do it.
Maybe this sucks, maybe not. I don't care. Whatever the case, there's a reason this was all discussed in the article. You could've just as easily directed that at the article writer. Though, I have a feeling you wouldn't.
It's too bad he never responded to my post, I was hoping he might.
I directed my first post at the article. The post you quoted was a response to someone responding.
More to the point, this trend of single-player economic gameplay in what are otherwise actiony games is interesting and worth doing better.
