UO like overview
Ron Smith
(the little circle that showed the nearby geographical surroundings). That
was one thing in UO that I liked. My son said "but in real life you don't
have that". I reply but in RL it is much easier to be aware of your
immediate surroundings just by turning your head. In RL you can also see a
lot farther than just that little screen sized area. In EQ you can see
farther due to the first person view, but I will have to see when I actually
start to play if a navigational aid like the overview would be desired.
Once the game starts I hope to never look at this newsgroup again.
Richard Francis
at least know what direction i'm headed. However, since stories being told
also include getting lost, neither seem to be in there.
Ron Smith wrote in message <755hpc$7hl$1...@usenet41.supernews.com>...
Virtus
expensive.
Who needs it anyways, IMHO I'm glad there isnt a mini map, I like the idea
of the posibility of loosing my sence of direction and becomeing completely
lost. =) Were's your sence of adventure? hehehe
Virtus
ToeJam
is used to sense what direction u r facing
Richard Francis wrote in message <755obu$6nm$1...@camel25.mindspring.com>...
Dizzy
not sure which get it. But I hear it sometimes depending on your skill it
can still get you messed up.
And yes it can be a pain not being able to use that mini map. Gonna
defiantly take some getting used to.
Richard Francis
skill.
I like adventuring, and do not want maps handed to me (i'll make my own),
but....I believe that first and foremost a game must be fun for me...I don't
want a real world simulation (skullcaps,shields) if it's gonna detract from
the funfactor...and wandering around lost with no clue where i am is NOT fun
for me.
I think a mini map is a great asset to playing..not necessarily one with as
much detail as UO's, but just a vague idea of the surroundings and which
compass direction i'm headed would be plenty. Besides, those who would
rather NOT have it can turn it off, right?
With EQ being as big as it is and the landmarks (trees,rocks,etc.) scarcer,
and the view tighter, getting lost is gonna be very common i believe.
One Halfling's opinion =)
Virtus wrote in message ...
Hexar
ToeJam wrote in message <755r68$6q5$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
>it appears that some classes (or maybe all) can have a direction skill that
>is used to sense what direction u r facing
>Richard Francis wrote in message <755obu$6nm$1...@camel25.mindspring.com>...
>>The mini map would be nice...what i'd like to have is a compass...so i can
>>at least know what direction i'm headed. However, since stories being told
>>also include getting lost, neither seem to be in there.
>>
>>
ToeJam
out how to make a crude compass (and this world has races that cast magic).
Hexar wrote in message ...
Kuiper
use the sun as a basic compass. Just a thought ;)
ToeJam
catacombs.
Kuiper wrote in message <3676d2ae...@news.idirect.com>...
Richard Francis
don't think i've seen anything about that anywhere.
All i've seen is light sky for daytime and darkness for night. no actual
celestial bodies to follow.
Kuiper
actually follow a pattern that can be used for navigating.
Would be cool to have star constelations too for when the moon is not
out and you are in the middle of the ocean sailing your own ship ;)
Dreams CAN come ture.
Virtus
take more notice of your surroundings and be much more observent.
Nobody would turn it off if they could though. Why? because if they did
they would be at a serious disadvantage to everybody else, and nobody wants
that. 98% of the players would keep it on if it was there. With it being off
however everone is in the same boat =) I really think it will make the game
MORE fun instead of less fun. Yeah you will spend time wandering around town
when you first get in the game wondering were the hell you are. I have 2
buddies in beta 3 right now... One of em spent 2 hours in town looking for
the main gate.
But that was only the first time. Once he'd been to it once he had no
trouble finding it later. Making travel too easy stinks. Thats one thing
thats wrong with UO, travel is WAY too easy, even if you dont use recall or
gate or the moongates even, its still too easy. By making travel hard, it
all of a sudden becomes a big deal to travel large distances. And when its a
big deal you get a sence of accomplishment when you finnally make it to your
destination. It also could make you very popular as a guide if you became
very fimilar with the local country side, or the route from one town to
another... To me it just hightens the excitement.
Not haveing a mini map also allows some cool situations. I mean say for
instance your up in a mountain zone, and all of a sudden a huge stone giant
or something comes at ya. You jump off a cliff into a fast flowing river,
which you are pulled down stream. After a ton of winds and turns, the river
calms down and you manage to get to the side and crawl out. Your sence of
direction is gone, your totally lost. What do you do now? IMHO thats cool.
=) It makes ya think... Plus depening on what you do you could run into who
knows what, things that you might have totally missed had you known exactly
what direction the nearest town was.
Virtus
GhostRider
have a sense heading skill...
Richard Francis <skyli...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:755obu$6nm$1...@camel25.mindspring.com...
Kaoz
try a dark elf necromancer or shadow knight. teehee.
confused
>Well IMHO getting lost is cool. =) Because it pushes you as the player to
>take more notice of your surroundings and be much more observent.
> Nobody would turn it off if they could though. Why? because if they did
>they would be at a serious disadvantage to everybody else, and nobody wants
>that. 98% of the players would keep it on if it was there. With it being off
>however everone is in the same boat =) I really think it will make the game
>MORE fun instead of less fun. Yeah you will spend time wandering around town
Well, everyone has their own definition of FUN; and yours is just as
valid as mine. In this instance, mine is exactly opposite.
To me, the incredible absurdity of trying to render a 3D world on a
21 inch, 2D surface without taking advantage of every possible aid to
the human eye makes for serious NON-fun. Any designer who suggests
doing away with any visual enhancement to aid the user's perception
gets my vote for putz of the week.
Obviously, I won't know until I play the game how much of an
impediment it is. But I do know that it's the kind of thing that has
the potential to make me not play. I played an RTS game once where
you had to somehow earn the technology for a minimap and the game went
right back to the store.
confused
Agamemnon
> Well, everyone has their own definition of FUN; and yours is just as
> valid as mine. In this instance, mine is exactly opposite.
>
> To me, the incredible absurdity of trying to render a 3D world on a
> 21 inch, 2D surface without taking advantage of every possible aid to
> the human eye makes for serious NON-fun. Any designer who suggests
> doing away with any visual enhancement to aid the user's perception
> gets my vote for putz of the week.
>
> Obviously, I won't know until I play the game how much of an
> impediment it is. But I do know that it's the kind of thing that has
> the potential to make me not play. I played an RTS game once where
> you had to somehow earn the technology for a minimap and the game went
> right back to the store.
Perhaps you'd like to see a world such as UO, where all the important
locations where known after a few weeks; conquently, its luster wore off
soon after. It was easy to make maps as well, since the world was much
smaller. Basically, exploration was not a major reason to play. While
having no sense of your location could be frustrating, I have yet to see
a game where this is truly a problem after a week or two of playing.
Most game "worlds" are too small to get lost in for any length of time,
even if you wanted too. It looks like EQ will finally be one of those
worlds.
However, to make it easier, there will be a sense direction skill and
direction spells. Also, any areas near populated locations will most
likely be covered with paths you can follow. Knowing the general
direction and using paths should allow you to travel far enough to build
up your character and enjoy the game.
Agamemnon
Silvin
Silvin
former GM archer/mage
Ron Smith
But wandering around aimlessly isn't much fun either, especially since this
is a cooperative game and I will need to be able to find my friends before
we can go kick monster butt together.
Agamemnon <e...@stny.lrun.com> wrote in message
news:3677BFAA...@stny.lrun.com...
Silverlock
(confused) wrote:
If everyone has the ability to look at a magic overhead view that
seriously deletes the ranger/druid tracking location finding
abilities. Not only that but if it isn't there then everyone is
similarly limited but if it is then those who are limited are those
who like to explore rather then just look at a map. this helps focus
those who want such tools into classes that offer them.
>"Virtus" <br...@bellsouth.net> conjured up this insight:
>
>>Well IMHO getting lost is cool. =) Because it pushes you as the player to
>>take more notice of your surroundings and be much more observent.
>
>> Nobody would turn it off if they could though. Why? because if they did
>>they would be at a serious disadvantage to everybody else, and nobody wants
>>that. 98% of the players would keep it on if it was there. With it being off
>>however everone is in the same boat =) I really think it will make the game
>>MORE fun instead of less fun. Yeah you will spend time wandering around town
>
>Well, everyone has their own definition of FUN; and yours is just as
>valid as mine. In this instance, mine is exactly opposite.
>
>To me, the incredible absurdity of trying to render a 3D world on a
>21 inch, 2D surface without taking advantage of every possible aid to
>the human eye makes for serious NON-fun. Any designer who suggests
>doing away with any visual enhancement to aid the user's perception
>gets my vote for putz of the week.
>
>Obviously, I won't know until I play the game how much of an
>impediment it is. But I do know that it's the kind of thing that has
>the potential to make me not play. I played an RTS game once where
>you had to somehow earn the technology for a minimap and the game went
>right back to the store.
>
>confused
>
--
Silverlock, ICQ 474725
Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.
Thomas Prewitt
help you determ where you are at. Sense direction skill shows you which way is
north.
confused
insight:
<snip>
All of the responses seem to be completely avoiding the issues that
make this a problem for me. That issue is the one of representation
of a 3D world on a tiny 2D screen. It can't be done. All
representations are pathetic at best. It's like looking a landscape
painting by some great artist and then walking outside to look at a
few real life trees. The painting is a joke, no matter how "great" it
is. It can at best, "suggest" a landscape.
I maintain, that, as a game designer, willfully handcuffing yourself
by restricting what visual tricks you will employ to try and convey
the "sense", "feeling", "suggestion", "idea", "concept" of a real 3D
world is a crime. Technology and cost are handcuffs enough without
imposing new ones for some inane gaming point.
Let me bitch about another gaming device that is beyond absurd. Maybe
this will help you see my frustration and biases. It is the so called
"fog of war" in "so called" strategy games. Excuse me? And this
adds to the "strategy" part of the game how? It does NOT. It reduces
the strategic element ten fold. It would be like playing a game of Go
and not being able to see your opponents moves unless they were within
4 intersections of one of your stones. Would that increase the
strategy part of the game? NO. The two KEY elements that comprise
strategy are time and space. The longer the time range I have to
think about, and the bigger the space I have to think about, then the
more long range, strategic thinking I'm required to do. And please,
don't insult me by pointing out that the fog of war adds other
elements such as surprise, and the need for fast response time to
unforseen situations. Of course it does, that's why they put it in
the game. But the price paid in reduced strategic element is just way
too high for those paltry rewards.
This second is obviously only losely related to the point at hand, but
it does give me the same kind of "I'm being cheated" feeling in my
gaming experiences. And that, I guess is my overall point. Whatever
little joys others might find from things like the fog of war or a
missing overhead come at too high of a price for me in terms of gaming
elements that I think are truly important.
And of course, all of this is subjective. Your subjective feelings
are as valid as mine. But these are mine.
confused
Ken Nicolson
(confused) wrote:
>confused@now_totally_bewildered.com (confused) conjured up this
>insight:
><snip>
>
>All of the responses seem to be completely avoiding the issues that
>make this a problem for me. That issue is the one of representation
>of a 3D world on a tiny 2D screen. It can't be done. All
>representations are pathetic at best.
"Pathetic" is a rather strong word, but everyone will agree we're
many, many years away from photo-realism. Even the most expensive
effects in films like Titanic often look naff, so what hope does a
humble PC have?
>It's like looking a landscape
>painting by some great artist and then walking outside to look at a
>few real life trees. The painting is a joke, no matter how "great" it
>is. It can at best, "suggest" a landscape.
Umm, that's the point of art, or was Picasso crap because he got
perspective all wrong, and Dali was always drawing bendy things. As
for Escher, he'd fail has a Technical Draftman.
>I maintain, that, as a game designer, willfully handcuffing yourself
>by restricting what visual tricks you will employ to try and convey
>the "sense", "feeling", "suggestion", "idea", "concept" of a real 3D
>world is a crime.
What tricks are 989 employing? Or are you listing the roving camera as
a trick?
>Technology and cost are handcuffs enough without
>imposing new ones for some inane gaming point.
Please mention what you're on about. The roving camera is a plus, not
an imposition, I would guess.
>Let me bitch about another gaming device that is beyond absurd.
[snip "Fog of War" bitch]
FoW has absolutely nothing to do with EQ.
>This second is obviously only losely related to the point at hand, but
>it does give me the same kind of "I'm being cheated" feeling in my
>gaming experiences. And that, I guess is my overall point. Whatever
>little joys others might find from things like the fog of war or a
>missing overhead come at too high of a price for me in terms of gaming
>elements that I think are truly important.
Ahh, no "overhead" view. So, when you go walking in the country you
take a remote control plane fitted with a video camera so you can
survey the lay of the land as you walk. Initially in the UO beta, the
overhead view was a spell, "Birds Eye", but for whatever reasons, UO
made it a standard feature. I suspect it was because in UO stupid
things like tree stumps or a daisy (let alone house mazes!) could form
impassible barriers, thus the overhead view was the only way to get
around. Also, due to the top-down view, you couldn't see more than 6
or so squares ahead of you to work out where exactly you were going.
To sum up, IMO, the overhead view in UO is OSI admitting that the 2D
tile-based engine is too limiting.
>And of course, all of this is subjective. Your subjective feelings
>are as valid as mine. But these are mine.
Perhaps in EQ sextants or compasses or maps will become useful tools,
rather than their useless UO equivalents. What about the thrill of
actually getting lost in the woods - during early UO beta I had no
world map, and didn't know or have the overview map, so it was quite
fun getting lost. However, the world was so small and the automap
helped so much, that the sense of wonder was soon lost.
>confused
Looking forward to being confused by EQ mapping.
confused
>Please mention what you're on about. The roving camera is a plus, not
>an imposition, I would guess.
Sigh, another person who starts responding before reading the entire
post or catching a clue from the thread.
>FoW has absolutely nothing to do with EQ.
Lol. You are the great defender of abstract and other non-realist
artists and yet my self proclaimed, loosely related tangent bothers
you?
>Ahh, no "overhead" view. So, when you go walking in the country you
>take a remote control plane fitted with a video camera so you can
>survey the lay of the land as you walk.
Now that's clever. And it has WTF to do with the conversation? You
wish to dredge up that lamest of all gaming arguments, the "reality"
argument? If that is the case, I'll just pass on trying to have an
intelligent discussion.
>Perhaps in EQ sextants or compasses or maps will become useful tools,
>rather than their useless UO equivalents. What about the thrill of
>actually getting lost in the woods - during early UO beta I had no
>world map, and didn't know or have the overview map, so it was quite
>fun getting lost. However, the world was so small and the automap
>helped so much, that the sense of wonder was soon lost.
Perhaps they will. So what? I list such things as "useful sextants"
in the "gee swell" category when compared to real game play issues.
They aren't even bells and whistles, just added little googaws.
One man's thrill is another's colossal bore.
I may not be the most rabid person here, but believe me, I'm waiting
anxiously for EQ. I'm just afraid that the thing is going to be so
bad visually (the screen shots are disgusting) that I won't be able to
play it. If they actually try to make it harder to deal with a 3D
world on a 2D screen instead of easier than that, coupled with the
ugly 'polygonalness' of 3D engines in general may make the game
unplayable for me. Some DoOds think 3D rOCKs but the truth is, at the
end of the day, it's just a bunch of ugly polygons.
confused
Sugarman
>
> confused@now_totally_bewildered.com (confused) conjured up this
> insight:
> <snip>
>
> All of the responses seem to be completely avoiding the issues that
> make this a problem for me. That issue is the one of representation
'Representation' can be done on a 2d screen. Desginers are forced, by
necessity of the lagging tech, to do this. 'Replication' of a 3d world
cannot be done yet, and likely not ever.
> It can't be done. All
> representations are pathetic at best. It's like looking a landscape
> painting by some great artist and then walking outside to look at a
> few real life trees. The painting is a joke, no matter how "great" it
> is. It can at best, "suggest" a landscape.
So? A carefully crafted painting can, and in the hands of the masters,
often does, eclispe the arbitrary reality of the scene they are showing,
and end up with a more powerful image. It may effect you in different,
more subtle ways, but a well done painting may rise above the fact that
it is a lossey encoding of of some real-life scene.
> I maintain, that, as a game designer, willfully handcuffing yourself
> by restricting what visual tricks you will employ to try and convey
> the "sense", "feeling", "suggestion", "idea", "concept" of a real 3D
> world is a crime. Technology and cost are handcuffs enough without
> imposing new ones for some inane gaming point.
Again, this is done by necessity. Not everyone has a quad Alpha633 with
2GB of RAM and a RAID system. In game design, speed is more important
than resolution, and resolution is more important than a realistic
physics model. Take a look at Trespasser. They strived to create a
'realistic physics model' Guess what? The GAME sucked.
But enough about that. We're talking about having an automap feature,
AIR, and the simple example here is Quake. After several years of every
FPS and most RPG's having an automap, regardless of what degree they
were an abstraction of reality, Quake came out without one. There was
no reason why they couldn't have had one. Descent had a 3-d automap and
was released a year-and-a-half earlier.
At first, people bitched about not having an automap and getting lost.
Then they realized that that added to the immersiveness of the game, and
made you look around to find everything, rather than just firing up the
automap and looking for the blank areas. And that is the key.
'Immersiveness'. The more involved you are in the world, the fewer
things that yank you out and send you crashing bask to reality, the more
immersed you are in it, this all makes your time in the virtual world
more enjoyable.
And now for something completely different.
> Let me bitch about another gaming device that is beyond absurd. Maybe
> this will help you see my frustration and biases. It is the so called
> "fog of war" in "so called" strategy games. Excuse me? And this
> adds to the "strategy" part of the game how? It does NOT. It reduces
> the strategic element ten fold.
I think we can agree that most RTS games are not true strategic games in
any sense. Fog of war is another abstraction to help add an element to
the game. See below.
> It would be like playing a game of Go
> and not being able to see your opponents moves unless they were within
> 4 intersections of one of your stones.
The analogy doesn't fit. Again...this is because the RTS are not 'pure'
strategy games, wherein GO is. GO also has fixed sides, initial
resources, and 'map size'.
> Would that increase the
> strategy part of the game? NO. The two KEY elements that comprise
> strategy are time and space. The longer the time range I have to
> think about, and the bigger the space I have to think about, then the
> more long range, strategic thinking I'm required to do. And please,
> don't insult me by pointing out that the fog of war adds other
> elements such as surprise, and the need for fast response time to
> unforseen situations. Of course it does, that's why they put it in
> the game. But the price paid in reduced strategic element is just way
> too high for those paltry rewards.
I believe that FoW was added for another reason as well. Some
turn-based games, such as Civ and HOMM also have FoW. Why would they
have it, hmmm? In those instances, FoW is less of a strategic element,
and more a device to enforce exploration. Take Civ2. Once the apollo
program is completed, and you have launched yourself into space, the FoW
is lifted, becasue it makes sense in game terms. You know have
something above the map, and are able to look down at everything.
In Warcraft 2, the FoW represents that this is a game of Swords and
Sorcery, and you don't have the tech to know what else is going on
everywhere. You are limited in how far you can see, becuase your troops
would be too. The FoW becomes a way to limit a top-view omniscient
perspective to what would be visibly to your troops in 1st person
perspective .
However, why the FoW would exist in a game like CnC or Mechcommander is
beyond me. You would think that a world with aircraft and spaceships
would allow you to see the whole damn map.
> This second is obviously only losely related to the point at hand, but
> it does give me the same kind of "I'm being cheated" feeling in my
> gaming experiences. And that, I guess is my overall point. Whatever
> little joys others might find from things like the fog of war or a
> missing overhead come at too high of a price for me in terms of gaming
> elements that I think are truly important.
There is a time and place to allow gamers to be omniscient about their
surroundings. However, it doesn't exist IRL, and the fact of whether it
is implemented or not is often a conscious decision about how much your
character should know. Oftentimes, alloying your character access to an
omniscient view is just an attempt to patch other problems within the
design of the game.
--sugarman--
r.s.p-w
"Where culture's defined by the one's least refined..."
Offspring, "Americana"
Thomas Prewitt
some people enjoy it. The people who enjoy it are afraid that if an
option exist so you can see your surroundings and figure out where you are
at, then they will be tempted to use it and not have as much fun. They
are weak minded fools who can't handle the temptation of taking the easy
way.
If you enjoy getting lost, then you should have an option where your
overhead view won't be activated. There is no reason to deny the rest of
us an option we want just because you wouldn't enjoy it as much.
It is like the pks being upset that they can't kill and loot everyone. Or
the thieves being upset that they can't rob everyone and use their
lockpicking skill to break into guildhouses. Why would letting other
people be able to figure out where they are be something you are against?
If you like getting lost, then turn off the option. Then everyone is
happy.
Now that is all there is too it.
By the way, all the beta test so far have had the /location command which
people have been using to find out where they are at and navigate with.
Take that away, in a world this big, and people will become hopelessly
lost. If you don't even know where the nearest road is at, or what
direction you are traveling in, then you are hopelessly screwed and could
run for hours before finding a landmark, such as an ocean or a town. You
will have to run from some monsters from time to time, and keeping track
of where you are during the retreat, will be difficult. Especially if you
are surround by them and have to run in several different directions.
Sorry if I posted this in the wrong section, I just thought I'd throw it
in somewhere.
confused wrote:
> All of the responses seem to be completely avoiding the issues that
> make this a problem for me. That issue is the one of representation
> of a 3D world on a tiny 2D screen. It can't be done.
> confused
confused
<snip>
>There is a time and place to allow gamers to be omniscient about their
>surroundings. However, it doesn't exist IRL, and the fact of whether it
>is implemented or not is often a conscious decision about how much your
>character should know. Oftentimes, alloying your character access to an
>omniscient view is just an attempt to patch other problems within the
>design of the game.
Thanks for the good post. We don't agree, but it's nice to be able to
discuss why not. In the end, it is subjective. I get less immersed
in games where frustration with the 2D representation distracts me.
Other's, obviously get more immersed. Such is life.
confused
Ken Nicolson
(confused) wrote:
[snip some editing and rearrangement of my previous post]
>If they actually try to make it harder to deal with a 3D
>world on a 2D screen instead of easier than that,
OK, please explain that statement. How are they making it harder? What
would you suggest they do make it easier?
>confused
Ken
confused
>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:23:03 GMT, confused@now_totally_bewildered.com
>(confused) wrote:
>[snip some editing and rearrangement of my previous post]
I beg your pardon. Would you please be so kind as to point out
exactly where I edited (other than snipping) and/or rearranged your
post? You are either a simple liar or terribly careless with your
accusations, and I'm not sure which is worse. I did neither.
>>If they actually try to make it harder to deal with a 3D
>>world on a 2D screen instead of easier than that,
>OK, please explain that statement. How are they making it harder? What
>would you suggest they do make it easier?
Sigh. One more time, the topic is, "overhead maps."
What are they? They are a device, a trick, an aid. They are one,
well tested, device which can be used to help bridge the vast gulf
between a 3D world and a 2D computer monitor. Every little thing that
can be done to help is good. Anyone purposely leaving off any of
these aids because they think it will somehow enhance the gaming
experience are targeting customers with a different set of gaming
priorities than mine.
It makes no more sense to eliminate them (I'm using the pronoun "them"
to refer to "overhead maps" in case that context is too far away) from
the game than it would to eliminate sound. Just think, if there were
no sound, at all, the element of surprise would be so much greater.
Imagine the excitement of both being lost in the woods AND not hearing
anything that tries to sneak up on you! What extra fun! An no, it's
not good enough that I can turn off my sound. I may be tempted to
turn it on if it's available. So, there must be no sound for anyone
so I can have the extra suspense of not hearing anything.
Personally, I think the biggest possible breakthrough in gaming I
could hope for in the next few years is some kind of synthetic odor
device. Smell is the key sense that one uses, especially at a
subconscious level, when traveling in strange places. Especially
places like forests. I for one, will sign up for such a device, aid,
contraption, what have you as soon as they become available. Anything
that helps bridge the gulf is good in my book.
confused
Spiked Synapse
Sugarman wrote in message <367D5971...@canada.com>...
<Snip>
>'Representation' can be done on a 2d screen. Desginers are forced, by
>necessity of the lagging tech, to do this. 'Replication' of a 3d world
>cannot be done yet, and likely not ever.
<Snip>
um.. not ever. thats a pretty foolish thing to say. If you told an early
1970's person what everquest does and looks like they would say that could
never be done, But it has. One computer geek said "the'll never need more
than 640k" Do you see my point.
C'mon 2d blows for a rpg. An rpg is an attempt to repilcate another life
one more andventurous and exciting than our own. Life is 3d first person,
and thus best represented as such.
Spiked Synapse
delilah
That "geek" was Bill Gates in 1984 or 1986, for the trivia inclined.
Sugarman wrote:
> <snippage>
Sugarman
> >necessity of the lagging tech, to do this. 'Replication' of a 3d world
> >cannot be done yet, and likely not ever.
>
>
> um.. not ever. thats a pretty foolish thing to say. If you told an early
> 1970's person what everquest does and looks like they would say that could
> never be done, But it has. One computer geek said "the'll never need more
> than 640k" Do you see my point.
> C'mon 2d blows for a rpg. An rpg is an attempt to repilcate another life
> one more andventurous and exciting than our own. Life is 3d first person,
> and thus best represented as such.
I don't want to argue "bests" here. I do think RPG's should be
1st-person. But I do recall playing a few cool RPG's that were in 2-d
in my day. A good RPG is in the execution, not the PoV.
Sugarman
>
> That "geek" was Bill Gates in 1984 or 1986, for the trivia inclined.
>
> Sugarman wrote:
>
> > <snippage>
> > > 1970's person what everquest does and looks like they would say that could
> > > never be done, But it has. One computer geek said "the'll never need more
> > > than 640k" Do you see my point.
> > > C'mon 2d blows for a rpg. An rpg is an attempt to repilcate another life
> > > one more andventurous and exciting than our own. Life is 3d first person,
> > > and thus best represented as such.
> >
> >
Hey, lets try and keep the attibutations right here. I'm pretty sure
that was Spiked Synapse you're quoting. Just credit were credit is due
is all.
Eclipse
Zork was a text based game (certainly not 1st person).
It was on a computer.
You played a Role.
It's a game.
Sugarman <suga...@canada.com> wrote in message
368099EB...@canada.com...
>delilah wrote:
>>
>> That "geek" was Bill Gates in 1984 or 1986, for the trivia inclined.
>>
>> Sugarman wrote:
>>
>> > <snippage>
>> > > um.. not ever. thats a pretty foolish thing to say. If you told an
early
>> > > 1970's person what everquest does and looks like they would say that
could
>> > > never be done, But it has. One computer geek said "the'll never need
more
>> > > than 640k" Do you see my point.
>> > > C'mon 2d blows for a rpg. An rpg is an attempt to repilcate
another life
>> > > one more andventurous and exciting than our own. Life is 3d first
person,
>> > > and thus best represented as such.
>> >
>> >
>
>Hey, lets try and keep the attibutations right here. I'm pretty sure
>that was Spiked Synapse you're quoting. Just credit were credit is due
>is all.
>
Spiked Synapse
prowness just short sightedness.
Spiked Synapse
delilah wrote in message <36807BDB...@pacific.net>...
Mahrin Skel
>Let me bitch about another gaming device that is beyond absurd. Maybe
>this will help you see my frustration and biases. It is the so called
>"fog of war" in "so called" strategy games. Excuse me? And this
>adds to the "strategy" part of the game how? It does NOT. It reduces
>the strategic element ten fold. It would be like playing a game of Go
>and not being able to see your opponents moves unless they were within
>4 intersections of one of your stones. Would that increase the
>strategy part of the game? NO. The two KEY elements that comprise
>strategy are time and space. The longer the time range I have to
>think about, and the bigger the space I have to think about, then the
>more long range, strategic thinking I'm required to do. And please,
>don't insult me by pointing out that the fog of war adds other
>elements such as surprise, and the need for fast response time to
>unforseen situations. Of course it does, that's why they put it in
>the game. But the price paid in reduced strategic element is just way
>too high for those paltry rewards.
>
I beg to differ. Classic strategy games had to be played on a board,
which granted "Perfect Knowledge" to the players. However, this does not
simulate the reality of strategy, where you have only that knowledge which
you make an effort to get. More to the point, not knowing what your
opponent is doing extends the range of things he *might* be doing. By the
same token, *denying* the enemy knowledge of your actions can confer
advantage. In fact, the "Fog" is what makes them *strategy* games, rather
than tactical simulations.
--Mahrin Skel
EverQuest Vault Magic Shop
http://www.eqvault.net
Mahrin Skel
>By the way, all the beta test so far have had the /location command which
>people have been using to find out where they are at and navigate with.
>Take that away, in a world this big, and people will become hopelessly
>lost. If you don't even know where the nearest road is at, or what
>direction you are traveling in, then you are hopelessly screwed and could
>run for hours before finding a landmark, such as an ocean or a town. You
>will have to run from some monsters from time to time, and keeping track
>of where you are during the retreat, will be difficult. Especially if you
>are surround by them and have to run in several different directions.
I beg to differ. With nothing but the Sense Direction skill, I can now
find my way around nearly all of Norrath easily, except for some of the
dungeons. It took some *work*, but now that I have put in that effort, I
can navigate quite well by landmarks and the occasional use of Sense
Direction.
When I go into a new Outdoor area, I stay out of fights until I know my
way around. When I go into a new Dungeon, I group up (about the only time I
do), follow our "Fetcher" a few times. do some fetching of my own. It
really isn't hard to get your bearings.
I have tried to tell people not to get too used to /loc, but they don't
listen. The price they will pay is that when it goes away, they won't be
able to find their way around. Not because it is impossible, but because
they weren't paying attention.
confused
> I beg to differ. Classic strategy games had to be played on a board,
>which granted "Perfect Knowledge" to the players. However, this does not
>simulate the reality of strategy, where you have only that knowledge which
>you make an effort to get. More to the point, not knowing what your
>opponent is doing extends the range of things he *might* be doing. By the
>same token, *denying* the enemy knowledge of your actions can confer
>advantage. In fact, the "Fog" is what makes them *strategy* games, rather
>than tactical simulations.
Since this thread is dead anyway we might as well drift....
As with all debates on "strategy" in strategy games we will probably
just end up agreeing that we have different opinions on what makes a
strategy game a strategy game. C.s.i.p.g.s would be the proper venue
for this disucssion but then it's been had there a hundred times
before.
Your statement, " the reality of strategy, where you have only that
knowledge which you make an effort to get" is interesting but not part
of "the reality" that I'm aware of. In almost all cases where
strategic planning is involved (e.g., business, war, etc.), one is
more often confronted with an overload of unsolicited information than
with a derth of information. Certainly if not so for information, it
is so for raw data. Historically, this may have been different, but I
would argue that strategy is a much larger factor in modern warfare
than in Ghengis Khan's day.
And while it is true that, " not knowing what your opponent is doing
extends the range of things he *might* be doing", this is analogous to
saying that if you add enough frequencies to the music you will get
"lots" of music. No, if you add enough, you will get white noise.
Your point is seductive but it is wrong. Extending the range of
things he might be doing to that extent simply turns it in to noise
and reduces your "strategic" planning to "cover all possible
contingencies", which is neither strategy nor planning.
As for "fog" and board games, contrast Go and Battleship. The upright
board in battleship supplied a low-tech solution to providing fog. It
introduces the element of luck and makes for a formulistic solution.
In Go (which I personally believe to be the platinum standard of
strategy games), luck plays no role. Both players have the exact same
amount of information. The one with the best strategy, and in closely
contested games, the fijnest tuned tactical skills, will win.
Finally, would you argue that playing a computerized version of Go
that implemented fog would make the game *more* strategic?
confused
Mahrin Skel
>"Mahrin Skel" <ri...@cumulus.net> conjured up this insight:
>
>> I beg to differ. Classic strategy games had to be played on a board,
>>which granted "Perfect Knowledge" to the players. However, this does not
>>simulate the reality of strategy, where you have only that knowledge which
>>you make an effort to get. More to the point, not knowing what your
>>opponent is doing extends the range of things he *might* be doing. By the
>>same token, *denying* the enemy knowledge of your actions can confer
>>advantage. In fact, the "Fog" is what makes them *strategy* games, rather
>>than tactical simulations.
>
>Since this thread is dead anyway we might as well drift....
This is Usenet, being on topic is the exception. ;)
>
>As with all debates on "strategy" in strategy games we will probably
>just end up agreeing that we have different opinions on what makes a
>strategy game a strategy game. C.s.i.p.g.s would be the proper venue
>for this disucssion but then it's been had there a hundred times
>before.
>
And will a hundred times again. Some topics are naturally immortal.
>
>Your statement, " the reality of strategy, where you have only that
>knowledge which you make an effort to get" is interesting but not part
>of "the reality" that I'm aware of. In almost all cases where
>strategic planning is involved (e.g., business, war, etc.), one is
>more often confronted with an overload of unsolicited information than
>with a derth of information. Certainly if not so for information, it
>is so for raw data. Historically, this may have been different, but I
>would argue that strategy is a much larger factor in modern warfare
>than in Ghengis Khan's day.
Creating "knowledge" out of information is the essence of "Staff Work",
or intel analysis. Actually, Genghis was in large part successful because
the mass "everybody fights" approach that was made possible by his
conquering the Chinese and their fairly efficient bureaucracy, it gave him
*huge* logistical and organizational advantage. You don't need much
strategy when you outnumber your opponents by 100 to 1.
"Modern War" is usually defined as having started with Napolean. He
invented the "General Staff", a collection of analysts whose sole purpose
was to evaluate all that information and from it distill knowledge. For the
gamer, such a luxury is usually unavailable.
Nonetheless, although operational art has certainly improved since the
days of the Golden Horde, the importance of strategy has *not*. "Amateurs
talk tactics, dilletantes talk strategy, professionals talk logistics."
Genghis was the first true professional. By maximizing his ability to field
men, he gained an overwhelming strategic advantage. Sun Tzu preceded
Genghis by quite a bit, strategy had been fundamental to war for quite some
time.
>
>And while it is true that, " not knowing what your opponent is doing
>extends the range of things he *might* be doing", this is analogous to
>saying that if you add enough frequencies to the music you will get
>"lots" of music. No, if you add enough, you will get white noise.
>Your point is seductive but it is wrong. Extending the range of
>things he might be doing to that extent simply turns it in to noise
>and reduces your "strategic" planning to "cover all possible
>contingencies", which is neither strategy nor planning.
Yep, which emphasizes the need for not only more intel, but better
analysis. For the strategy gamer, a talent for looking at the confusion of
enemy movements and activities, gained in snapshots, and from that
determining his capabilities and and intentions is essential. This applies
equally if you have "Perfect knowledge", it simply takes the same notion to
the next level, you can no longer do so at leisure, but under "time
pressure" as events move on.
>
>As for "fog" and board games, contrast Go and Battleship. The upright
>board in battleship supplied a low-tech solution to providing fog. It
>introduces the element of luck and makes for a formulistic solution.
>In Go (which I personally believe to be the platinum standard of
>strategy games), luck plays no role. Both players have the exact same
>amount of information. The one with the best strategy, and in closely
>contested games, the fijnest tuned tactical skills, will win.
A good gamer makes his own luck, through his use of strategy and
tactics. If you lose to "bad luck", what you are really saying is that you
screwed up, and you don't know where.
>
>Finally, would you argue that playing a computerized version of Go
>that implemented fog would make the game *more* strategic?
>
Would a computer *player* of Go, who always executed the absolutely
perfect moves, be a better, more "fun" opponent? The problem with "perfect
knowledge" games is that there exists, for any given game configuration, a
perfect solution. This can range from trivial (tic-tac-toe) to currently
intractable (Go, Chess), but it is *present*. It is *not*, in games where
knowledge can never be perfect.
confused
> Yep, which emphasizes the need for not only more intel, but better
>analysis. For the strategy gamer, a talent for looking at the confusion of
>enemy movements and activities, gained in snapshots, and from that
>determining his capabilities and and intentions is essential. This applies
>equally if you have "Perfect knowledge", it simply takes the same notion to
>the next level, you can no longer do so at leisure, but under "time
>pressure" as events move on.
I won't try to argue with that at all. I will say, however, that the
statement, "a talent for looking at the confusion of enemy movements
and activities, gained in snapshots, and from that determining his
capabilities and and intentions is essential" is quite true but this
talent is *not* a talent of strategy per se. It is, as you say, a
staff job; and with that I should just rest my case and declare that
you have proven my point quite admirably. (: (Knowing when to simply
declare victory *is* a strategic talent. (: )
> A good gamer makes his own luck, through his use of strategy and
>tactics. If you lose to "bad luck", what you are really saying is that you
>screwed up, and you don't know where.
>>
Well, it's been well over 30 years since I tried a game of battleship
but if I recall, a person could get extremely "lucky" and score hits
with their first few, totally random attempts. I say this is a "pure
luck" type of feature.
>>Finally, would you argue that playing a computerized version of Go
>>that implemented fog would make the game *more* strategic?
>>
> Would a computer *player* of Go, who always executed the absolutely
>perfect moves, be a better, more "fun" opponent? The problem with "perfect
>knowledge" games is that there exists, for any given game configuration, a
>perfect solution. This can range from trivial (tic-tac-toe) to currently
>intractable (Go, Chess), but it is *present*. It is *not*, in games where
>knowledge can never be perfect.
Well, I'd be tempted to drift again on the issue of the perfect game
of Go. But rather, let me just say that there is the "poker" element
to complex games like Go. The "perfect" move at critical junctures in
a game like "Go" is often a move of deception or bluff and not a
simple min-max move.
confused