OML banking on TTL rather than Outwitters???

[ImperialSun]

(04-17-2013 02:58 AM)Erenan Wrote:  I agree and disagree with all of you.

I want more Outwitters content, but to me it makes little difference in terms of gameplay whether it's in the current game or in a new one. A new one would make more financial sense, so I favor that.

On the other hand, I totally understand what you're saying about not wanting a Chess 2. Outwitters has at its core a set of gameplay mechanics that have been developed and tweaked to get them as good as possible. This set of mechanics constitute an abstract system of rules that make up the game of Outwitters, similar to the rules that make up the game of Chess. We don't need a new product to continue the development of this set of rules.

So then... we have the Chessmaster series, which goes to eleven now. What does each Chessmaster game have to offer that previous games didn't have?

• Support for current video cards to allow for increasingly high-res 3D graphics. Not something Outwitters really needs, in my opinion.
• New tutorials and learning modes. Could this be something Outwitters might benefit from? Seems to me the forums handle this rather well already.
• Better AI? Not sure if they bother to update the AI any longer, but again this is not something that Outwitters could reasonably have given the massive resources necessary to produce it (if it's even computationally possible).
  

So what would you put in Outwitters 2 that you couldn't just add to Outwitters? I get your point, or I think I do, anyway.

This.

Nice summary and captures the point I was trying to make well. AI would be a major addition to Outwitters 2 but like I said before, I personally wouldn't use it because I'd rather play Super-Titans instead. I already said what I think they could add, but I'll just list them here again now that you have posted.

- AI. Wouldn't use this personally but would probably help sales
- Campaign. Could be interesting and I know many people in appstore ratings and in comments on Outwitters reviews requested some kind of single player like this. I just care about the multiplayer, but if it makes Outwitters more successful that's great.
- Built-in Map Editor. This would be great!
- Custom game modes. Some fun alternatives to the normal game. These would be unranked.
- Custom rule support. Even better than the previous suggestion would be a basic way to modify objectives and certain gameplay aspects (base health, unit cost, unit damage, wits from wit spaces, etc).

These are things that would be hard to patch into Outwitters 1 that I think could work well in Outwitters 2. Like I said earlier, things like new maps and teams, while nice, aren't enough on their own to justify a new game since it has already been shown that they can be added in patches to the first one.

---

(04-16-2013 06:29 AM)ElPared Wrote:  TL-DR

I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to a sequel. Plenty of games release successful sequels when they could have easily added all of the sequel's content to the original through an update. The chief advantage of an Outwitters 2 being, yes it's the same game, but you charge for it up front, and also for in-game content.

good job jumping on the one bad example I gave, though. I guess that means you agree with the others

Again you seem to have no idea what I am saying. Why even respond if you don't even know what you are responding to. I never said that I was opposed to a sequel! I said that I didn't see how they could make a sequel without changing the core mechanics which would be sad. Then in my second post I said that I actually realized some things they could add to make Outwitters 2 marketable as a new game despite having the same core mechanics - AI, campaign, map editor, and so on. None of which you had stated however since you just mentioned maps and teams. Even though I think OML could make a good sequel without changing the core game now, I stand by what I said that simply adding new maps and teams isn't enough for a "sequel" since you can already do this in the first game.

As for agreeing with the other "examples", you only provided one more which was Zombieville 2. I already had written a lot, but I guess you wanted me to write even more and explain everything in even more detail? Clearly not because you said tl;dr. But fine. Even though I enjoy mika mobile's other games, I have to say that I'm not a fan of Zombieville so I couldn't really talk about the changes in the sequel... Is that sufficient?

Look. I wasn't trying to tear apart your Splinter Cell example out of spite like you seem to mistakenly assume. I broke down why your analogy didn't work to try to prove a point, nothing else.

(04-17-2013 03:33 AM)ElPared Wrote:  true you could add anything that might end up in a sequel to the original Outwitters we have now. My point is that's never stopped people from making sequels to their games anyways

Give me one good example of a game which added new content in DLCs or patches and then made a sequel exactly the same as the old game but with the exact same type of new content as the DLCs/patches provided. For example, if Halo 5 has the exact same campaign and multiplayer as Halo 4 except it has a new set of maps. That would be a complete rip-off when those maps could have just been sold in a map pack in Halo 4. New guns and game modes don't count if you want to be true to the Outwitters 2 with only new maps and teams analogy. That's all I was saying. That I disagree with your statement that it isn't necessary to add anything that couldn't be easily patched into the original.