Hi, thanks for your comment. My first approach was to make it realistic with natural proportions but soon I realized that it would not be fun. I has several issues:
the sun magnitude would make the inner planets barely visible, therefore imagine the moons!. The outer planets would be small but visible.
the outer planets are also very big compare to the earth, i respected that relationship but I modified it so the inner planets are more visible.
I wanted to add proportional distances but then, the experience would have been much more boring as the distances between planets are HUUUUGE, you would not being able to see any other planet except the one you are next to it. I decided to scrap real distance proportions.
I also had to scrap the idea of respecting the proportions for the planet revolutions. the inner planets are coherent between them , same for the outer ones, but the outer ones are 4X ( if i remember properly ) compared to the inner ones to make the experience more enjoyable, otherwise the outer planet wouldn't move OR if I accelerated the outer ones , the inner ones would spin so fast it would have been impossible to enjoy it.
Because of all of the above I designed it and tweaked to a point where I found a compromise to make it look "realistic" but at the same time "enjoyable".
Making it full realistic at scale is possible but the experience would be completely different., more focused to understand the scale of the solar system instead of having 1 easy quick look as it is now.
Thank you checking my solar system, very much appreciated!
It feels like you have done a lot of serious work in this project. I came to similar conclusions. In the space theme, realism often interferes with entertainment. We have to make compromises.
But there is another doubt. It seems to me that there are some non-obvious smart solutions that could reduce the number of necessary compromises. These solutions are somewhere in the field of designing the player's interaction with the game. We just haven't invented them yet:)
I don't seem to be expressing my thought very well:)
It is a very different experience, but then you have Elite dangerous which is huge and still can be fun, niche but fun for certain persons ( I am one of those ).
I can´t understand your second sentence, could you pleas elaborate?
I will assume that the second sentence you call the following text:
But there is another doubt. It seems to me that there are some non-obvious smart solutions that could reduce the number of necessary compromises. These solutions are somewhere in the field of designing the player's interaction with the game. We just haven't invented them yet:)
Although I'm not sure about that.
I'll try to explain with an example:
Let's say that we are designing a gameplay component of a game in which the player flies from the Sun to some point near the Earth, then flies around the earth and moves towards the Moon.
The simplest thing we can do is to move the camera at a constant speed along a given trajectory.
Here we meet the problem of boring proportions of reality. The first 99% of the way from the Sun to the Earth, the Earth will be just a pixel on the screen. It turns out that the player is forced to observe for one minute an almost static picture of approaching an incomprehensible blue pixel for the sake of half a second of beautiful movement relative to the 3D model of the earth. A similar situation will occur when flying to the moon.
We can increase the fun by changing the proportions between distances and sizes. But we can not change the proportions, but make the speed of the player's camera variable. The speed will be huge at the beginning of the journey, then it will gradually decrease. For example, we can use the formula:
(current velocity) = (current dist to target) * (const coef)
You can also use smarter formulas that provide a beautiful smooth deceleration.
The essence of the example is that the problem is solved by a small modification of the gameplay. I agree that the solution proposed in my example is not good in itself. Better solutions certainly exist. The question is, are there good enough solutions? That is, are there such solutions when we do not compromise with realism, but still get a funny result.
I agree with you about the target audience. Scientific correctness is relevant for a small niche.
← Return to game
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
I played this game it is really fun!
Not a bad system. The desire for realism pleases. Do you think there is even a way to make a fun system with natural proportions in size?
Hi, thanks for your comment. My first approach was to make it realistic with natural proportions but soon I realized that it would not be fun. I has several issues:
Because of all of the above I designed it and tweaked to a point where I found a compromise to make it look "realistic" but at the same time "enjoyable".
Making it full realistic at scale is possible but the experience would be completely different., more focused to understand the scale of the solar system instead of having 1 easy quick look as it is now.
Thank you checking my solar system, very much appreciated!
Thank you for the detailed answer!
It feels like you have done a lot of serious work in this project. I came to similar conclusions. In the space theme, realism often interferes with entertainment. We have to make compromises.
But there is another doubt. It seems to me that there are some non-obvious smart solutions that could reduce the number of necessary compromises. These solutions are somewhere in the field of designing the player's interaction with the game. We just haven't invented them yet:)
I don't seem to be expressing my thought very well:)
It is a very different experience, but then you have Elite dangerous which is huge and still can be fun, niche but fun for certain persons ( I am one of those ).
I can´t understand your second sentence, could you pleas elaborate?
I will assume that the second sentence you call the following text:
But there is another doubt. It seems to me that there are some non-obvious smart solutions that could reduce the number of necessary compromises. These solutions are somewhere in the field of designing the player's interaction with the game. We just haven't invented them yet:)
Although I'm not sure about that.I'll try to explain with an example:
Let's say that we are designing a gameplay component of a game in which the player flies from the Sun to some point near the Earth, then flies around the earth and moves towards the Moon.
The simplest thing we can do is to move the camera at a constant speed along a given trajectory.
Here we meet the problem of boring proportions of reality. The first 99% of the way from the Sun to the Earth, the Earth will be just a pixel on the screen. It turns out that the player is forced to observe for one minute an almost static picture of approaching an incomprehensible blue pixel for the sake of half a second of beautiful movement relative to the 3D model of the earth. A similar situation will occur when flying to the moon.
We can increase the fun by changing the proportions between distances and sizes. But we can not change the proportions, but make the speed of the player's camera variable. The speed will be huge at the beginning of the journey, then it will gradually decrease. For example, we can use the formula:
(current velocity) = (current dist to target) * (const coef)
You can also use smarter formulas that provide a beautiful smooth deceleration.
The essence of the example is that the problem is solved by a small modification of the gameplay. I agree that the solution proposed in my example is not good in itself. Better solutions certainly exist. The question is, are there good enough solutions? That is, are there such solutions when we do not compromise with realism, but still get a funny result.
I agree with you about the target audience. Scientific correctness is relevant for a small niche.