what is criteria for evaluation a game that is micro or macro????

Truc_Quan

Hi guys,
Im here just to know what is you thinking about one game when you play it and assess that is micro or macro, i feel like im fool when i ask like that, but just want to know thinking of people

ste2000

You what?

Vrika

@Truc_Quan

I don't understand your question.

I don't think anyone is able to understand that question.

Elsabolts

Please speak English or have someone post for you.

Truc_Quan

@Truc_Quan

I don't understand your question.

I don't think anyone is able to understand that question.

Truc_Quan

Nyctelios said:

Micro/macro is a reference to the scope focus on your management.

Micro'ing is a term in rts to where you are specifically moving single units to avoid certain tactics and that focus itself is the core of your strategy/playstyle. Where macro'ing is overseeing the whole, like Masters of Orion and other "4x'ts". There are also some great deepRTS with automation on micro so you can play it only on macro.

There are several games that focus solely on one of said aspects, but we have great rts focusing on both. I think the game design should be criteria to ensure which one will have more weight on the game, so it kinda depends of the game itself.

I hope it "answers" you question.

Thanks so much about your answer, im noob here so want to make new thread but look like i have problem with my English )

Jonh_Levii

I think her English has problem, but you guy should sympathyze for her , I wonder that is boy or girl? )

Gamer54321

I don't find OP's question meaningful, because 'micro' and 'macro' are general ideas that pertain to one's sense of scale in some way.

At the very least, one ought to point out how a sense of scale is problematic (a description, something suggestive or an argument).

I hope OP isn't entertaining the idea of making superficial and simplistic games a canon (a standard), as if that was ok, as if such game design ideas were "micro" in a way with regard to ones ambition to create/design a game.

As for the word "ambition", I pointed out on Reddit yesterday in a thread in the No Man's Sky section, how silly it was for the author of a magazine having claimed in an article that NMS was supposedly "ambitious". I pointed out how NMS couldn't possbily be considered ambitious given the terribly simplistic design, and for the fanboys that started downvoting me after that, I asked them to explain to me just why they thought NMS was "ambitious", and nobody gave me and answer, but kept mocking me for trying to be reasonable.

cameltosis

Yeh, confused about the question too. I took it to mean "Do you evaluate games on a macro level, i.e. looking at the game as a whole, or do you evaluate games on a micro level, i.e. only looking at the specific elements that you are interested in?"


For example, I would give ESO a fairly high score on a macro level, because the game seems well built and well rounded, has a clear purpose and audience in mind and has mostly managed to achieve it. Yet, I won't personally play it because on a micro-level, I don't like the combat system and find it too simplistic.