MMORPG problems
Bj?rn Mor?n
particulary interesting? The following are the points that I think
designers are underestimating in their players.
- Players are creative
Most MMORPGs of today rely on the idea of experiencing pre-created
content: players should experience the game content much like a very
interactive book. The games are based on streamlined content as a
replacement for player creativeness. The designers assume that players
like to be entertained in their laziness, rather than entertained in
their creativity. (I'm being harsh, hope you get the point)
While often appealing by graphics and professional content, such games
easily break if new content is not constantly added, which really
isn't cost effective. They work by "throwing" tons of content on the
players in an effort to hide weaknesses in game concepts or mechanics.
Most players are creative enough to provide most game content if they
are given an open ended interesting system. Non-creative players will
live off of the creative ones. In order to make the game interesting
enough it must have detailed game mechanics, support many different
game concepts and have support systems for enforcing player ideas and
handling tedious work. (By concepts I mean combat, housing, crafting,
trade, communities, laws, etc).
- Players are individual
Designers often assume a lot about the player's taste and needs.
Players do not want to be fitted in to predefined roles and ways of
playing, they want to pursue their own specific lifestyle; they want
to play *their* role. By letting players choose from stereotypic roles
we are hardly contributing to a role-playing experience.
Individuality in its shallow form is being able to choosing race,
role, bodily features and equipment, evident in many RPGs.
Individuality in it's deeper form is the ability to create roles, and
define new game rules that enforces and supports a player's specific
taste of playing.
- Players want detailed realism
Most players of RPGs want an extraordinary experience that's different
from the real world. They want to immerse in an exciting and different
world that stimulates them. Still, what would easily break such an
adventure, would be the lack of detailed realistic rules. A game would
break by having too simplified and too non-realistic game mechanics.
Vivid detailed game mechanics is much more important than vivid
detailed graphics, the latter being the usual strategy of current
RPGs.
Detailed game mechanics adds a depth to the game that can not be
achieved in other ways. Just as the real world, it will keep players
occupied very long with examining and understanding the world they are
living in. Detailed mechanics means for instance expanding the number
of item attributes, creature skills and game concepts, and letting
them form complex realistic relations.
/Björn Morén
Hendrik Mans
> - Players are creative
But only few are talented. An MMORPG allowing players to create their own
content (items, missions, whatever) is likely to generate 99% useless crap
and 1% (probably less) interesting new stuff. Does that really improve the
game?
> - Players are individual
The more open and flexible a character development system is, the more
likely it is to feel lost in it and experience kind of a virtual identity
crisis. Obviously, the most flexible character development system of them
all is real life itself, but you can't compare that to a computer game. In
real life, I can easily say who or what I am because the real life skill
tree is based on things we know and understand. In an MMORPG that defines
characters through skill attributes alone, it is very hard to say what you
are. Are you a Healer, because your Heal skill is very high? But your sword
fighting skill is high, too, so are you a Healer Swordfighter? How do you
assess if another character is useful to your party? Ask him for the skill
numbers?
I believe that filing player characters into clean categories (ie, classes)
is the better (because less confusing and essentially more fun) way, even
if it seems boring. When you are a Level 15 Cleric and meet a Level 12
Warrior, you both have a pretty good idea of what the other does and what
it means for playing as a party.
> - Players want detailed realism
You can't bring detailed realism across in a game like it is in real life.
In real life, things are governed by a huge number of rules and laws. Take
physics for an example. When we pick up a stone and throw it, we expect the
path it is going to travel based on various input data our brain collects
for us, like the stone's weight. There's a huge number of physical laws
playing a part in this, but our brain doesn't think about those, it doesn't
even know about those, it just knows of previous experience. We know what
path the stone is going to take because we've thrown stones before and have
a pretty good idea of how the path correlates to the stone's weight.
This means that there is no such thing as "realism" in a computer game.
When we play a game, we learn how it works. It doesn't matter that it
doesn't work like real life. Both are each a reality. Trying to make a
computer game more "realistic" means translating real world experience into
a computer game, which is physically impossible (because you can't feel how
heavy the stone is in the game).
You can only throw lots and lots of numbers at the player in order to make
the game's realism/reality more complex. But that doesn't necessarily make
it more interesting, exciting or fun.
- Hendrik
Bj?rn Mor?n
> On 20 Jan 2004 01:02:39 -0800, Bj?rn Mor?n wrote:
>
Good points Hendrik. Thanks for the feedback.
Principally we differ on the view of how optimum MMORPGs should be
constructed. While I understand that different flavours of MMORPGs
will always exist, my opinion is that the really successfull ones will
follow the simple concept of being simulations. They will of course be
in a different more exciting setting than the real world, but when it
comes down to game mechanics and "concepts" (building blocks) they
will resemble the real world as closely as possible. My firm belief is
that players want the real world. They want the same kind of
psychology, intuitive concepts, interaction, etc, but on steroids and
in a more exciting setting. They want to be somebody else, but playing
by intuitive rules they immediately understand. Today we of course
have limitied ways of providing such an experience, but I feel that
designers aren't even trying to accomplish something in that
direction. They'll rather force synthetic concepts on their players
with the motivation that they make sense within the game world. "So I
cant attack a player but a non-player, because that will result in a
better expercience for all players". This is design flaws that we dont
need.
> > - Players are creative
>
> But only few are talented. An MMORPG allowing players to create their own
> content (items, missions, whatever) is likely to generate 99% useless crap
> and 1% (probably less) interesting new stuff. Does that really improve the
> game?
So far this is the case, but thats because the games are constructed
in a way that promotes 99% crap. I think we can comapre this to the
real world. Most people are not creative, but they want to experience
the results of creative people (items/tools/books/movies/games). The
creative ones compete with eachother over the attention from other
people (the consumers). The problem is that this kind of dynamics is
not supported by any games of today. They are just too limited.
> > - Players are individual
>
> The more open and flexible a character development system is, the more
> likely it is to feel lost in it and experience kind of a virtual identity
> crisis. Obviously, the most flexible character development system of them
> all is real life itself, but you can't compare that to a computer game. In
> real life, I can easily say who or what I am because the real life skill
> tree is based on things we know and understand. In an MMORPG that defines
> characters through skill attributes alone, it is very hard to say what you
> are. Are you a Healer, because your Heal skill is very high? But your sword
> fighting skill is high, too, so are you a Healer Swordfighter? How do you
> assess if another character is useful to your party? Ask him for the skill
> numbers?
If this is the case the world is presented in a non-intuitive way.
Look at it this way. When you enter the world you are a kid. What
actions you perform will gradually shape you into a role just like the
real world.
I think you are underestimating the players. If they feel like healers
they are healers, not because some skill stat says so. The healer
feeling will be reinforced by physical attributes (clothes, etc) and
behavior. Other players will soon call me healer, because that's what
I do. This is already evident in the sub-roleing that takes place in
todays limited CRPGs. You aren't just a knight among 100 knights. You
are the "sword expert knight" or the "healer knight", even though the
game system may not support such labels.
> I believe that filing player characters into clean categories (ie, classes)
> is the better (because less confusing and essentially more fun) way, even
> if it seems boring. When you are a Level 15 Cleric and meet a Level 12
> Warrior, you both have a pretty good idea of what the other does and what
> it means for playing as a party.
This is a kind of "shallow" experience for me.
> > - Players want detailed realism
>
> You can't bring detailed realism across in a game like it is in real life.
> In real life, things are governed by a huge number of rules and laws. [...]
Youre absolutely right, all details cant be simulated and one of the
great efforts lie in determining just what details contribute to
making the game organic and vivid. Very much can be done in this
aspect when comparing with current CPRGs.
> This means that there is no such thing as "realism" in a computer game.
> When we play a game, we learn how it works. It doesn't matter that it
> doesn't work like real life. Both are each a reality. Trying to make a
> computer game more "realistic" means translating real world experience into
> a computer game, which is physically impossible (because you can't feel how
> heavy the stone is in the game).
I think we have to isolate MMORPGs from other types of games. I admit
that tic-tac-toe has very litte to do with the real world. MMORPGs are
very complex games. Players will reject complex games if they do not
operate in a way that feels naturally intuitive, because they simply
don't want to put the amount of time and effort into it. I say that
MMORPGs must be complex to provide anything interesting, and therefore
they must be very close to the real world. But they should be in a
different and exciting setting, and the detailed game mechanics should
make intuitive sense within that world. The more you break that
intuitive feeling the harder it becomes for the players. Sure, World
of Warcraft style games will exist in the future too, but I think they
will look boringly trivial compared to the "real" MMORPGs that will
emerge.
I agree that we cant feel the weight of the stone. We will never be
able to substitute the real world for a simulated one, but we surely
can move in that direction a lot more if you look how CRPGs are done
today.
> You can only throw lots and lots of numbers at the player in order to make
> the game's realism/reality more complex. But that doesn't necessarily make
> it more interesting, exciting or fun.
The details should be layered so they players aren't overwhelmed by
them. The more you look for them, the more they will be noticable.
/Björn
Nathan Mates
Bj?rn Mor?n <bjoe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Principally we differ on the view of how optimum MMORPGs should be
>constructed. While I understand that different flavours of MMORPGs
>will always exist, my opinion is that the really successfull ones will
>follow the simple concept of being simulations.
Sure sounds trivial when you write it that way. However, the devil
is in the details, as usual. Simulations are one of those things that
continually demand more and more to get diminishing
returns. "Simulating" a few things may be easy. Adding the next thing
adds in a ton of bugs, a lot of unforseen interactions, and less and
less gain each time. So, the audience starts saying "I can do 87
things with this rock, but I REALLY REALLY want to do #88." At what
point do you say "enough?" I see no hint of your giving thought to
that very important question.
Serious sims have priced themselves way out of the market, as they
demand too much for little gain. Computer games are both design and
implementation; you're ignoring the latter -- which makes your ideas
less likely to be taken seriously.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
# think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein
Bj?rn Mor?n
> In article <e4e045a.04012...@posting.google.com>,
> Bj?rn Mor?n <bjoe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Principally we differ on the view of how optimum MMORPGs should be
> >constructed. While I understand that different flavours of MMORPGs
> >will always exist, my opinion is that the really successfull ones will
> >follow the simple concept of being simulations.
>
> Sure sounds trivial when you write it that way. However, the devil
> is in the details, as usual. Simulations are one of those things that
> continually demand more and more to get diminishing
> returns. "Simulating" a few things may be easy. Adding the next thing
> adds in a ton of bugs, a lot of unforseen interactions, and less and
> less gain each time. So, the audience starts saying "I can do 87
> things with this rock, but I REALLY REALLY want to do #88." At what
> point do you say "enough?" I see no hint of your giving thought to
> that very important question.
My apologies if I made this sound trivial. It is all but trivial, it's
a huge undertaking. And I'm just a regular guy trying to contribute in
some way. You got to start somewhere, to get anywhere.
The big issue is figuring out what details that contribute to a
greater experience. Detail for sake of detail is pointless. When I
talk about a simulation MMORPG I dont even mean the detailed physics
coming up in games like HalfLife 2. I mean carefully selected details
that imitate the real world in a way that makes the game feel more
vivid and real. Make every detail count and have some meaning in the
game.
Sure, players will always feel a need to do stuff thats not possible
in the game. All games share that problem. But if the design is
holistic and well done, they will understand the game's limitations
and not start asking about #88. I am aware of that I simplify the
problem, but its for sake of easy explanation.
I get your point, all this talk means nothing if I can't come up with
the details that will make my simulation MMORPG work. I dont want to
hide behind fancy words. But I think this discussion is valid and can
contribute somewhat to understanding and creating the future MMORPGs.
An example of a small step in that direction is the thread about RPG
crafting I started recently on this group. A lots of small steps like
that gets us moving in the direction of a simulation MMORPG.
> Serious sims have priced themselves way out of the market, as they
> demand too much for little gain. Computer games are both design and
> implementation; you're ignoring the latter -- which makes your ideas
> less likely to be taken seriously.
My main focus is really on programming/architecture, and at age 36 I
have been in lots of projects, so I can say I understand the process.
I'm not ignoring implementation, I'm trying to change the big picture
in an effort to create something new, and thats always very hard. I
would *never* try to emulate an existing MMORPG, that's just
pointless.
Thanks for your input.
/Björn
Eternal Vigilance
Bj?rn Mor?n wrote:
> How can the current MMORPGs be improved? Why do I not find them
> particulary interesting? The following are the points that I think
> designers are underestimating in their players.
>
> - Players are creative
> Most MMORPGs of today rely on the idea of experiencing pre-created
> content: players should experience the game content much like a very
> interactive book. The games are based on streamlined content as a
> replacement for player creativeness. The designers assume that players
> like to be entertained in their laziness, rather than entertained in
> their creativity. (I'm being harsh, hope you get the point)
>
> While often appealing by graphics and professional content, such games
> easily break if new content is not constantly added, which really
> isn't cost effective. They work by "throwing" tons of content on the
> players in an effort to hide weaknesses in game concepts or mechanics.
>
> Most players are creative enough to provide most game content if they
> are given an open ended interesting system. Non-creative players will
> live off of the creative ones. In order to make the game interesting
> enough it must have detailed game mechanics, support many different
> game concepts and have support systems for enforcing player ideas and
> handling tedious work. (By concepts I mean combat, housing, crafting,
> trade, communities, laws, etc).
>
Ive been saying for years - players have 100x the creativity of all the
'experts'
in all the game companies. 2% of the players (programmers/tool
expertise) can produce
enough reusable or minorly modifiable terrain/objects/behaviors for use
by all the rest of
the players. The tools required for players to easily create game assets
though will be
as big a project as most of the game engines (doubling the cost), BUT
producing the
game assets often is 70% of a games cost so that the companies could
actually make
more $$$$ letting the players creat a majority of a games assets
Building block objects of sufficient complexity should be useable by
non-programmers
(ie- NPCs which plausible default attributes that when placed adapt to
their sitation --
self configure, adopt local flavorings, associate appropriately with other
NPCs in their
new 'home' and then behave at gametime correctly. )
Any improvements like this will be better than the empty world spaces or
the
populations of lifeless NPC zombies in current games.
>
> - Players are individual
> Designers often assume a lot about the player's taste and needs.
> Players do not want to be fitted in to predefined roles and ways of
> playing, they want to pursue their own specific lifestyle; they want
> to play *their* role. By letting players choose from stereotypic roles
> we are hardly contributing to a role-playing experience.
>
> Individuality in its shallow form is being able to choosing race,
> role, bodily features and equipment, evident in many RPGs.
> Individuality in it's deeper form is the ability to create roles, and
> define new game rules that enforces and supports a player's specific
> taste of playing.
>
It may take a bit of work (or even segregation to different servers
fundamentally conflicting player flavors. Zones can be created with their
own rule sets that restrict behaviors to the local 'flavor'. If players
dont
like the existing zones they should be free to construct one that they
want
and players can 'vote with their feet' to find a game style bthey like.
>
> - Players want detailed realism
> Most players of RPGs want an extraordinary experience that's different
> from the real world. They want to immerse in an exciting and different
> world that stimulates them. Still, what would easily break such an
> adventure, would be the lack of detailed realistic rules. A game would
> break by having too simplified and too non-realistic game mechanics.
> Vivid detailed game mechanics is much more important than vivid
> detailed graphics, the latter being the usual strategy of current
> RPGs.
>
> Detailed game mechanics adds a depth to the game that can not be
> achieved in other ways. Just as the real world, it will keep players
> occupied very long with examining and understanding the world they are
> living in. Detailed mechanics means for instance expanding the number
> of item attributes, creature skills and game concepts, and letting
> them form complex realistic relations.
>
A player's interaction and the reactions from them should follow common
experience or at least be consistant to eliminate having to memorize too
many exceptions/limitations. Objects should have physics. Details
should be logical. A higher level of detail would allow greater and more
imaginitive interactions. Consistency of level of detail should exist to
make a wide range of experience possible (not just the most popular).
>
> /Björn Morén
Eternal Vigilance
Hendrik Mans wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2004 01:02:39 -0800, Bj?rn Mor?n wrote:
>
> > - Players are creative
>
> But only few are talented. An MMORPG allowing players to create their own
> content (items, missions, whatever) is likely to generate 99% useless crap
> and 1% (probably less) interesting new stuff. Does that really improve the
> game?
>
Then you keep the best 1% and make it available to all the rest of the players.
A moron can place a chair into a room if supplied with one (the tools for
placing chairs
already exist). More complex creations like behaviors can be made to be used
similarly as 'building blocks' by players with imagination but no programming
knowhow.
BTW 1% of 1% of the players are probably good enough programmers to create good
AI
but what those few create can be made useable to all other players the same
way.
You give each player the ability to create his own 'area' -- small at first.
If the creation passes
requirements a larger/more complex area can be given to work on (DMing/GMing is
a skill too)
Good tools to vet objects/ protect players from Griefer build
objects/monsters/areas can be
built (point equivalents/risk/safety factors, sandbox protection of scripts,
etc...)
Or you simply make the visual/auditory/spaciual output detailed enough fo more
subtle
/ flexible presentation of what happens in the game. A game with no numbers
could be done, where a player can guage his abilities/capabilities/effect on
the world
by actually doing things and comparing against what others in the world can do.
Brent P. Newhall
> Hendrik Mans wrote:
> > On 20 Jan 2004 01:02:39 -0800, Bj?rn Mor?n wrote:
> >
> > > - Players are creative
> >
> > But only few are talented. An MMORPG allowing players to create their own
> > content (items, missions, whatever) is likely to generate 99% useless crap
> > and 1% (probably less) interesting new stuff. Does that really improve the
> > game?
>
> Then you keep the best 1% and make it available to all the rest of the
> players.
> If the creation passes requirements...
What is the criteria for the "best"? What are the requirements? How
can content pass those requirements?
--
Brent P. Newhall
http://brent.other-space.com/
Tom Plunket
> Ive been saying for years - players have 100x the creativity of
> all the 'experts' in all the game companies.
...and since there are like 1,000,000x (or more) as many game
players as there are game developers, that means that the average
game developer is still 10,000x more creative than the average
player.
Interesting observation.
-tom!
Eternal Vigilance
"Brent P. Newhall" wrote:
Substitute the work acceptable (read as 'doesnt suck' or 'doesnt operate' or
'doesnt contain obscene material')
The criteria obviously is subjective and to be defined by the community.
I expect that the program itself will have to limit damage it can do to players
(sand boxing) as well as revertable character images as a fallback.
So you design a 'chair' -- if it looks like a chair amd works like a chair
and it quacks like a chair its probably good enuf.
If its NPC AI that blows up, stops operating on basic testing (and further
reviewed by
players to report problems) then its not 'good enuf' and it gets pulled from
publication (general distribution/access by community of the 'vetted' game
assets...)
until its fixed.
Like I said, the tools will be as big a project as the game engine itself, and
part of
those tools will be basic test rigs/arenas to make it easy for the player to test
his
creations.
Eternal Vigilance
Tom Plunket wrote:
not quite
game industry workers creating content 10000 ??? maybe give or take???
1000000 players (??? maybe several times as many) and combined with
easy
to use tools (yet to be realized) these players can create stuff they
want
from many more viewpoints.
As a collective the players could do a hell of alot more than the people
working for
the companies (and do things they want instead of being told what they
will plkay with)
And the selling point (to those myopic bottom liners in management) the
players
would do it for free.
Take your blinders off. Games will stagnate if they dont break out of
the
current lack of player involvement in creativity.
>
> -tom!
Miss Elaine Eos
Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
> Hendrik Mans wrote:
>
> > On 20 Jan 2004 01:02:39 -0800, Bj?rn Mor?n wrote:
> >
> > > - Players are creative
> >
> > But only few are talented. An MMORPG allowing players to create their own
> > content (items, missions, whatever) is likely to generate 99% useless crap
> > and 1% (probably less) interesting new stuff. Does that really improve the
> > game?
You are mistaken.
For an example of an MMORPG (ok, technically, it's not an RPG, since
there is no G, it's more of an MMORPToy than a game) that allows players
to generate their own content and the content is very interesting,
vibrant, creative, and intersting, as well as having a terrific
community built up around it, check out www.secondlife.com
Btw, I'm not associated -- I just met the authors last week and saw a
rather inspiring demo. Pretty cool stuff.
But back to MMORPGs -- it turns out that social engineering is rather
straightforward stuff, and creating an environment where players
generate content and the content is self-regulating (meaning that the
players "promote" the good stuff and "ditch" the crap without any GM
labor-intensive intervention) is fairly straightforward. For a simple
example, all MOD-based games work this way; the crap gets ignored and
dies, while the good stuff spreads like wildfire.
--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Bj?rn Mor?n
> 'experts'
> in all the game companies. 2% of the players (programmers/tool
> expertise) can produce
> enough reusable or minorly modifiable terrain/objects/behaviors for use
> by all the rest of
Great that someone agrees with me.
> > - Players are individual
> > Designers often assume a lot about the player's taste and needs.
> > Players do not want to be fitted in to predefined roles and ways of
> > playing, they want to pursue their own specific lifestyle; they want
> > to play *their* role. By letting players choose from stereotypic roles
> > we are hardly contributing to a role-playing experience.
> >
> > Individuality in its shallow form is being able to choosing race,
> > role, bodily features and equipment, evident in many RPGs.
> > Individuality in it's deeper form is the ability to create roles, and
> > define new game rules that enforces and supports a player's specific
> > taste of playing.
> >
>
> It may take a bit of work (or even segregation to different servers
> fundamentally conflicting player flavors. Zones can be created with their
>
> own rule sets that restrict behaviors to the local 'flavor'. If players
> dont
> like the existing zones they should be free to construct one that they
> want
> and players can 'vote with their feet' to find a game style bthey like.
I agree. This is principally sound, but still hard to made work. Most
projects of this type have went nowhere. Its a challenge.
> > - Players want detailed realism
> > Most players of RPGs want an extraordinary experience that's different
> > from the real world. They want to immerse in an exciting and different
> > world that stimulates them. Still, what would easily break such an
> > adventure, would be the lack of detailed realistic rules. A game would
> > break by having too simplified and too non-realistic game mechanics.
> > Vivid detailed game mechanics is much more important than vivid
> > detailed graphics, the latter being the usual strategy of current
> > RPGs.
> >
> > Detailed game mechanics adds a depth to the game that can not be
> > achieved in other ways. Just as the real world, it will keep players
> > occupied very long with examining and understanding the world they are
> > living in. Detailed mechanics means for instance expanding the number
> > of item attributes, creature skills and game concepts, and letting
> > them form complex realistic relations.
> >
>
> A player's interaction and the reactions from them should follow common
> experience or at least be consistant to eliminate having to memorize too
> many exceptions/limitations. Objects should have physics. Details
> should be logical. A higher level of detail would allow greater and more
> imaginitive interactions. Consistency of level of detail should exist to
> make a wide range of experience possible (not just the most popular).
Absolutely. Maybe this can be summarised by the word "intuition". In
an ideal game players dont need to think much about *how* to perform
and *what* is available, but instead more about what they want to do
next. Thats utopia of course, but we surely can move in that
direction.
Thanks for your comments.
/Björn Morén
Eternal Vigilance
Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
And the good stuff becomes the starting point for modifications that can
result in amazing improvements (think of patterned cloth for clothing --
the industry has been wanting to increase the female player population --
they may have to make some kind of copyrighting mechanism to allow
players to retain credit for their achievements)..
Not everyone can create an intricate AI, but customizations (especially if
the AI was created to make mods easy) can be done by many more
lesser programmers and non-programmers.
Things are combined and recombined, new innovations are created etc...
I was amazed what the players in UO accomplished with the few meager things
that they were allowed to decorate the houses with (even the clothing combinations
which were even more limited). Recently the house tile system expanded what
could be done even more. (These are but a shadow of what could be if the games
ever opened up to this kind of player creativity)
If there is enough detail level for asthetics, even minor tuning of an object can
lead to
significant (to the viewers eye) improvements -- we want artists not just
engineers to
add their part. The more open relation between creator and viewer will allow
the viewers to interact (by voting with their feet or their gold or their
expressed opinions)
to guide the content.
Bj?rn Mor?n
> In article <4023A64A...@oneeye.com>,
> Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
>
> > Hendrik Mans wrote:
> >
> > > On 20 Jan 2004 01:02:39 -0800, Bj?rn Mor?n wrote:
> > >
> > > > - Players are creative
> > >
> > > But only few are talented. An MMORPG allowing players to create their own
> > > content (items, missions, whatever) is likely to generate 99% useless crap
> > > and 1% (probably less) interesting new stuff. Does that really improve the
> > > game?
>
> You are mistaken.
>
> For an example of an MMORPG (ok, technically, it's not an RPG, since
> there is no G, it's more of an MMORPToy than a game) that allows players
> to generate their own content and the content is very interesting,
> vibrant, creative, and intersting, as well as having a terrific
> community built up around it, check out www.secondlife.com
>
> Btw, I'm not associated -- I just met the authors last week and saw a
> rather inspiring demo. Pretty cool stuff.
>
> But back to MMORPGs -- it turns out that social engineering is rather
> straightforward stuff, and creating an environment where players
> generate content and the content is self-regulating (meaning that the
> players "promote" the good stuff and "ditch" the crap without any GM
> labor-intensive intervention) is fairly straightforward. For a simple
> example, all MOD-based games work this way; the crap gets ignored and
> dies, while the good stuff spreads like wildfire.
I agree with you. Principally this can be made work, but it still is a
huge challenge. I see the challenge as being able to keep game balance
but at the same time providing tools that enable player to create a
wide diversity of content. If we limit the tools (for easier game
balancing) all content will look the same.
I believe this is the way to go for MMORPG designs.
/Björn Morén
Nathan Mates
Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
>Take your blinders off. Games will stagnate if they dont break out
>of the current lack of player involvement in creativity.
I'm sorry, but I think you have the blinders on. MODs have been a
way for players to get creatively involved in games for years. Level
editors seem to go back nearly two decades in some games. That hardly
seems to be a "lack of player involvement."
Miss Elaine Eos
Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
> > For an example of an MMORPG (ok, technically, it's not an RPG, since
> > there is no G, it's more of an MMORPToy than a game) that allows players
> > to generate their own content and the content is very interesting,
> > vibrant, creative, and intersting, as well as having a terrific
> > community built up around it, check out www.secondlife.com
> >
> > Btw, I'm not associated -- I just met the authors last week and saw a
> > rather inspiring demo. Pretty cool stuff.
> And the good stuff becomes the starting point for modifications that can
> result in amazing improvements (think of patterned cloth for clothing --
> the industry has been wanting to increase the female player population --
> they may have to make some kind of copyrighting mechanism to allow
> players to retain credit for their achievements)..
You mean like 2nd-life's IP-scheme, which says "you keep the rights to
all your IP"? ;)
Brent P. Newhall
> "Brent P. Newhall" wrote:
>
> > Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
> > > Then you keep the best 1% and make it available to all the rest of the
> > > players.
> [snip]
> > > If the creation passes requirements...
> >
> > What is the criteria for the "best"? What are the requirements? How
> > can content pass those requirements?
> >
>
> Substitute the work acceptable (read as 'doesnt suck' or 'doesnt operate' or
> 'doesnt contain obscene material')
>
> The criteria obviously is subjective and to be defined by the community.
How? And how does the community enforce it?
> Like I said, the tools will be as big a project as the game engine itself, and
> part of
> those tools will be basic test rigs/arenas to make it easy for the player to
> test his creations.
Player testing is the least of my concerns with this approach.
I hate a player on your game. So I've created an egg that, as soon as
anyone except me picks itup, explodes and does damage. It works
exactly as I wanted it to. I made a bunch of them and left them
around the player's house/guild/etc.
How does the system respond to that sort of situation, or would it
circumvent it somehow?
Eternal Vigilance
Nathan Mates wrote:
> In article <40265329...@oneeye.com>,
> Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
> >Take your blinders off. Games will stagnate if they dont break out
> >of the current lack of player involvement in creativity.
>
> I'm sorry, but I think you have the blinders on. MODs have been a
> way for players to get creatively involved in games for years. Level
> editors seem to go back nearly two decades in some games. That hardly
> seems to be a "lack of player involvement."
>
You might find that you 'have the blinders on', if you consider think the
pitiful
level 'player involvement' is all that it can be.
I have a much broader idea of what it can be -- alot of it requires very much
better
tools to open the capability to 'mod' stuff to more than 5% of the players.
How much leeway do players have to create new weapon effects in the shooter type
games
(for example).
Is installing mods still clumsy manual methods? (they could be automatic --
part of a general
asset distribution system in the game)
Can player change more than a few of the game mechanics??
Is there a publishing system of 'building blocks' for these mods, so that
non-programmers can
plug together combinatiuons of them (does any general building block mechanism
higher
than scripting even exist)
They are opening more aspects to modding, but the tools are far behind to make
it easy for
a majority of players to create their own mods (and actually get close to what
they want done...)
Nathan Mates
Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
>> >Take your blinders off. Games will stagnate if they dont break out
>> >of the current lack of player involvement in creativity.
>> I'm sorry, but I think you have the blinders on. MODs have been a
>> way for players to get creatively involved in games for years. Level
>> editors seem to go back nearly two decades in some games.
>You might find that you 'have the blinders on', if you consider think the
>pitiful level 'player involvement' is all that it can be.
[...]
>How much leeway do players have to create new weapon effects in the
>shooter type games (for example).
So, you do agree that there is player involvement in creativity,
it's just a question of degree. You obviously think it's not enough,
as your weapon effects question seems to imply. First person shooters
are the most MODable games out there-- the Quake 1/2 engines are 100%
open source, giving the user the ability to do *ANYTHING*. New muzzle
flash? Go right ahead. New graphical effects? Go right ahead-- I've
heard of impressionist renderers for Q1. It's doable, and with a huge
fan community for Quake* games, you've got a lot of tutorials, etc on
the net. Won't necessarily be trivial, though.
It comes down to the question of degree. You seem to want a
point-and-drool-easy ability to change everything, everywhere, in
every game. There's no point-and-drool programming, there's no
point-and-drool texturing, there's no point-and-drool 3D modeling,
there's no point-and-drool sound effect tweaking. It's not that
companies are hiding features from users, it's just that what you seem
to want exists only in a holodeck fantasy. That makes you not
realistic, but a dreamer, and you'll just be written off with that
attitude.
Brent P. Newhall
Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
> Nathan Mates wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I think you have the blinders on. MODs have been a
> > way for players to get creatively involved in games for years. Level
> > editors seem to go back nearly two decades in some games. That hardly
> > seems to be a "lack of player involvement."
>
> You might find that you 'have the blinders on', if you consider think the
> pitiful level 'player involvement' is all that it can be.
>
> I have a much broader idea of what it can be -- alot of it requires very much
> better tools to open the capability to 'mod' stuff to more than 5% of the
> players.
>
>
> How much leeway do players have to create new weapon effects in the shooter
> type games (for example).
Essentially unlimited. I've heard of many mods to the popular FPS's
that add weapons from the medieval to the futuristic. Heck, one of
the first mods I heard for Quake added a tank.
>
> Is installing mods still clumsy manual methods? (they could be automatic --
> part of a general asset distribution system in the game)
It depends on what you mean by "manual." Mod installation should
never be fully automatic, as I don't want to fire up a copy of Halo
after a few weeks, sit there while it downloads 10 GB worth of mods
created since then, and have to choose from a list of 800 weapons.
>
> Can player change more than a few of the game mechanics??
Modders can essentially rewrite the game if they want to get to that
level.
However, I don't think that this is desirable. If you allow players
to change game mechanics, you aren't giving them a game; you're giving
them a gaming framework. If the player can change the game mechanics,
s/he can cheat and/or subvert the game itself.
>
> Is there a publishing system of 'building blocks' for these mods, so that
> non-programmers can plug together combinatiuons of them (does any general
> building block mechanism higher than scripting even exist)
Not that I'm aware of. But, again, is this desirable?
> They are opening more aspects to modding, but the tools are far behind to make
> it easy for
> a majority of players to create their own mods (and actually get close to what
> they want done...)
Anyone can write a short story (regardless of quality). According to
editors at fiction magazines, the vast majority of what they receive
is of poor quality. Example:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004641.html#004641
What would happen if the majority of game players created their own
mods?
Eternal Vigilance
Nathan Mates wrote:
> In article <40585147...@oneeye.com>,
> Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
> >> >Take your blinders off. Games will stagnate if they dont break out
> >> >of the current lack of player involvement in creativity.
>
> >> I'm sorry, but I think you have the blinders on. MODs have been a
> >> way for players to get creatively involved in games for years. Level
> >> editors seem to go back nearly two decades in some games.
>
> >You might find that you 'have the blinders on', if you consider think the
> >pitiful level 'player involvement' is all that it can be.
> [...]
> >How much leeway do players have to create new weapon effects in the
> >shooter type games (for example).
>
> So, you do agree that there is player involvement in creativity,
> it's just a question of degree. You obviously think it's not enough,
> as your weapon effects question seems to imply. First person shooters
> are the most MODable games out there-- the Quake 1/2 engines are 100%
> open source, giving the user the ability to do *ANYTHING*. New muzzle
> flash? Go right ahead. New graphical effects? Go right ahead-- I've
> heard of impressionist renderers for Q1. It's doable, and with a huge
> fan community for Quake* games, you've got a lot of tutorials, etc on
> the net. Won't necessarily be trivial, though.
Far from trivial maybe .5 % of players can do even the simplest of the
above???
Imagine (if you can) ALOT more creative input by ALOT more people.
Like I said before, it wont be easy. The tools of this sort are probably as
big or
a bigger project that the game itself. But once developed they arent thrown
away.
>
>
> It comes down to the question of degree. You seem to want a
> point-and-drool-easy ability to change everything, everywhere, in
> every game.
How about in just one game. Might prove so popular that its success
will make it a 'given' for future games that want to be successful.
Not only that, that 'one' game could be several games (changed to what
the players want/like).
Dont set up your strawman, they burn to ash too quickly.
A quantum level improvement will be fine . It will then prove itself etc etc...
> There's no point-and-drool programming, there's no
> point-and-drool texturing, there's no point-and-drool 3D modeling,
As long as people with limited 'imagination' like you, think so....
Just because you cant see it, dont declare the idea invalid.
It would be more along the lines of plug together widgets like
was used in Visual Basic to simplify building business applications.
(Im sure you make the spark plugs for your car -- right?)
REUSE (can you comprehend that idea??)
Building blocks created by real programmers (hiding the complex works).
Sorta-programmers who understand enough to clone and modify (those blocks).
Creators who then use all those resulting variants and recombine them
to their hearts content into higher order assemblies.
Simple users who choose basic options and reuse entire assemblies
and judge for themselves whats good or bad.
Tools at each level to make the work easier and allow use of the
stuff created by the more expert above them. (encapsulation ring a bell)
Think of simple configuration options with checkboxes and sliders
at the easiest to use levels....
Creativity can be used at each level and the mutability/richness of
whats could be available, magnitude more than the best modding available
now.
Ever see how fast ideas travel around on the web? The product of
that creativity will aggregate and mutate and be improved.
Something called 'synthesis' that you may have heard of.
(Its at work right now on the internet, so try to deny its effect)
>
> there's no point-and-drool sound effect tweaking. It's not that
You are kind of stuck in a box (of your own making)
Players can add their own assets freely.
If you have a favorite midi/wav/mpg it can be published
by someone who has nmore ability than you do and you just plug it in
to the appropriate slot.
Like I said, the tools dont (or barely) exist yet for the existing games.
But look at all the music tools out their now that anyone
who is interested can do pretty neat stuff with (of the shelf,
and play around with for an hour).
(if you need another example -- home publishing, that Im sure
alot of self declared 'experts' stated 'would never happen' )
>
> companies are hiding features from users, it's just that what you seem
> to want exists only in a holodeck fantasy.
Again the strawman. You dont have blinders on, you've
poked out your own eyes.
Companies pay a big part of their budgets on asset creation/integration.
This would save them alot of $$$$ money on creating games.
They could concentrate on improving their engines and creating
quality assets (the tools cut the costs there for THEM too) and game themes.
Their artists would then have time to develope their visions instead of
fighting the weivilly implementation details.
> That makes you not
> realistic, but a dreamer, and you'll just be written off with that
> attitude.
I dont give a rats-ass about your opinion. Its everyone else who
might read this that probably willwrite you off as 'vision-less'.
If you want the games to stay as limited as they are, you can
continue screaming to the hilltops your 'Cant do it' mantra.
Eternal Vigilance
"Brent P. Newhall" wrote:
> Note: I am not the original poster.
>
> Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
> > Nathan Mates wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, but I think you have the blinders on. MODs have been a
> > > way for players to get creatively involved in games for years. Level
> > > editors seem to go back nearly two decades in some games. That hardly
> > > seems to be a "lack of player involvement."
> >
> > You might find that you 'have the blinders on', if you consider think the
> > pitiful level 'player involvement' is all that it can be.
> >
> > I have a much broader idea of what it can be -- alot of it requires very much
> > better tools to open the capability to 'mod' stuff to more than 5% of the
> > players.
> >
> >
> > How much leeway do players have to create new weapon effects in the shooter
> > type games (for example).
>
> Essentially unlimited. I've heard of many mods to the popular FPS's
> that add weapons from the medieval to the futuristic. Heck, one of
> the first mods I heard for Quake added a tank.
>
But who can created them without alot of effort?? Know how?? etc...
That the part I want changed.
Imagine that tank created with tools that make modding the mod
extremely easy for JoeQUser ...
>
> >
> > Is installing mods still clumsy manual methods? (they could be automatic --
> > part of a general asset distribution system in the game)
>
> It depends on what you mean by "manual." Mod installation should
> never be fully automatic, as I don't want to fire up a copy of Halo
> after a few weeks, sit there while it downloads 10 GB worth of mods
> created since then, and have to choose from a list of 800 weapons.
>
A publishing and distributing system is integral to this system.
I know only too well the bandwidth problems involved.
The speeds are going up and this system isnt happening next year..
A versatile caching mechanism would make sure you would
download an asset only once. Bandwidth limitation of assets
(mainly textures and music) would be taken into account .
Think more about going to a game and downloading assets
needed for that particular variant only being loaded (if it
wasnt previously, and already on your disk).
Standins/temp substitutions could be used until the proper assets
got loaded in the background.
You might pick one from a published archive, by its description and
it would then download (behavior scripts and particle effects
are tiny compared to the huge assets -- even complex meshes
are not that large with proper compression and templating)
>
> >
> > Can player change more than a few of the game mechanics??
>
> Modders can essentially rewrite the game if they want to get to that
> level.
>
> However, I don't think that this is desirable. If you allow players
> to change game mechanics, you aren't giving them a game; you're giving
> them a gaming framework. If the player can change the game mechanics,
> s/he can cheat and/or subvert the game itself.
The person running the server could. But dont they do that already?
The client/server hacking is already a problem so the same solutions
eventually found would be used likewise here (some combination
of CRC fingerprints probably made easier because the data is more modular)
>
>
> >
> > Is there a publishing system of 'building blocks' for these mods, so that
> > non-programmers can plug together combinatiuons of them (does any general
> > building block mechanism higher than scripting even exist)
>
> Not that I'm aware of. But, again, is this desirable?
What were you not able to do gamewise that you wish you could.
You pick a game variant you like (you will have many many more...)
and you and your friends play it.
If someone developes a better one, you can then go and play that.
You want to play strick standard rules/game you are free to do that to if you want.
>
>
> > They are opening more aspects to modding, but the tools are far behind to make
> > it easy for
> > a majority of players to create their own mods (and actually get close to what
> > they want done...)
>
> Anyone can write a short story (regardless of quality). According to
> editors at fiction magazines, the vast majority of what they receive
> is of poor quality. Example:
>
> http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004641.html#004641
>
> What would happen if the majority of game players created their own
> mods?
>
Players will vote with their feet.
They play what they like and ignore the crap. (they do that with all the
crap look-alike games now, dont they? and the crappy mods doubly)
You arent forced to play someones game variant.
If something good is made, you will hear about it quick, and if its been
put out there on the net you will be playing it pretty quick too)
Out there are really creative people. They get stuck on the
technical details and cant create what they want (and you never see it
or play it)
There are technical geniuses who can create neat widgets, but cant
fill them out to be presentable and usable by the non-technical types.
You might have an idea and by picking out bits the 'experts' created
you might actually put together what you wanted (without being in
the .5% ability range required by current mods)
Eternal Vigilance
"Brent P. Newhall" wrote:
> Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote in message news:<40265130...@oneeye.com>...
> > "Brent P. Newhall" wrote:
> >
> > > Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
> > > > Then you keep the best 1% and make it available to all the rest of the
> > > > players.
> > [snip]
> > > > If the creation passes requirements...
> > >
> > > What is the criteria for the "best"? What are the requirements? How
> > > can content pass those requirements?
> > >
> >
> > Substitute the work acceptable (read as 'doesnt suck' or 'doesnt operate' or
> > 'doesnt contain obscene material')
> >
> > The criteria obviously is subjective and to be defined by the community.
>
> How? And how does the community enforce it?
If you dont like it, you dont put it on the game server, or choose the variant for
the game). People will talk on the internet about what is wrong with a particular
variant, and after one game of it it will probably be obvious to you whether
its worth playing.
Im sure there would be forums and 'rate the mod' polls and comments .....
Obviously buggy mods get found out pretty quick.
>
>
> > Like I said, the tools will be as big a project as the game engine itself, and
> > part of
> > those tools will be basic test rigs/arenas to make it easy for the player to
> > test his creations.
>
> Player testing is the least of my concerns with this approach.
But its much better for a creator to test his mod effectively before he
posts it to a community that will then barf it back.
>
>
> I hate a player on your game. So I've created an egg that, as soon as
> anyone except me picks itup, explodes and does damage. It works
> exactly as I wanted it to. I made a bunch of them and left them
> around the player's house/guild/etc.
>
>
> How does the system respond to that sort of situation, or would it
> circumvent it somehow?
>
If the person who sets up a game server (if there is one) or a 'configurartion'
for a client game (serverless games?) and gets content from YOU and it
becomes obvious its a cheat, they can then toss your content in the trash and get
something better (and probably think twice about using anything of yours
again)
You can setup the server to a limited set of 'vetted' objects or if you desire to
let anyone bring in any system compatible objects (look at NWN how they
handle it -- you script filters to disallow objects as needed)
-- I would have a tool for making those filters (instead of having to script it all)
to make even that fairly painless and useable by many more poeple.
Im sure people (in a community) will select or assemble a 'standard'
configuration that they like (balanced, best fits their theme, proven by previous play...)
and have that available to casual players (5 star recomendation...) or shuffle
elements quickly for tournaments where the real achievement is figuring out the
new situation quickly and adapting your tactics on the fly, instead of pandering to
the usual memorizers/beancounters.
Brandon J. Van Every
> Nathan Mates wrote:
>>
>> That makes you not
>> realistic, but a dreamer, and you'll just be written off with that
>> attitude.
>
> I dont give a rats-ass about your opinion. Its everyone else who
> might read this that probably willwrite you off as 'vision-less'.
Well, Nathan is probably of a different managerial type, and of a different
personality type, than yourself. Or myself, for that matter. Wisdom might
be gained from perusing the following resources on personality types:
http://www.teams.org.uk/shaper.htm - myself, possibly you
http://www.teams.org.uk/complete.htm - possibly Nathan
http://www.humanmetrics.com - FWIW I'm INTP, as probably are many around
here
http://www.personalitypage.com
I have to say, as someone who has invested heavily in "doing things a better
way" both for game design and programming technologies, that there's a
surprising / shocking amount of real world pain to go through to realize any
actual improvement. I'm not afraid of this pain, and I continue to pursue
strategic objectives that one such as Nathan would probably describe as
'impossible'. For instance, making game development into something of a
highly mechanized one man band. Imagine the guy with the tubas and drums
and clappers strapped to him and all of that. But, having painfully felt
how bad the real world really is, I tend to take any 'great idea' and knock
it down by about 1 order of magnitude before pursuing it. Because
unfortunately, if you can't get some incremental part of the strategic goal
accomplished in some reasonable timeframe, you're never going to get
anywhere.
My current status: sticking with Nebula2, looking for a C++ replacement,
abandoning Python, contemplating OCaml or Lisp.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Taking risk where others will not.
Philippa Cowderoy
> http://www.humanmetrics.com - FWIW I'm INTP, as probably are many around
> here
>
I always find this particular system somewhat amusing, as tests that give
weightings on the axes suggest that there's only one of the four I show a
significant trend in.
Brandon J. Van Every
I take their personality descriptions with many grains of salt. I find INTP
to be a good fit to my behavior, but I also strongly suspect they're
describing extremes of behavior, and I don't tend to be strongly expressed
in all the categories. Surprisingly, as of late my Thinker function is
down! I would never have believed....
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
On Usenet, if you're not an open source hippie who
likes to download and play with programming toys
all day long, there's something wrong with you.
Gerry Quinn
It's half science and half astrology. Everyone must be given a sign
they can identify with.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Screensavers, Games, Kaleidoscopes
Download free trial versions
Brandon J. Van Every
> In article <Pine.WNT.4.53.0403252248150.1576@SLINKY>, Philippa
> Cowderoy <fli...@flippac.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>> http://www.humanmetrics.com - FWIW I'm INTP, as probably are many
>>> around
>>> here
>>
>> I always find this particular system somewhat amusing, as tests that
>> give
>> weightings on the axes suggest that there's only one of the four I
>> show a
>> significant trend in.
>
> It's half science and half astrology. Everyone must be given a sign
> they can identify with.
Well, if it is only 'half' science, I have found that 'half' to have
tremendous predictive value when dealing with people. I prefer to think
that these typologies require you to use a bit of a 'liberal arts'
sensibility to interpret the results.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
R. Alan Monroe
>abandoning Python, contemplating OCaml or Lisp.
Any particular reason? Just curious.
Alan
Philippa Cowderoy
> I have to say, as someone who has invested heavily in "doing things a better
> way" both for game design and programming technologies, that there's a
> surprising / shocking amount of real world pain to go through to realize any
> actual improvement.
Given the nature of my final year project at uni I'm quite happy to second
this.
> I'm not afraid of this pain, and I continue to pursue
> strategic objectives that one such as Nathan would probably describe as
> 'impossible'. For instance, making game development into something of a
> highly mechanized one man band. Imagine the guy with the tubas and drums
> and clappers strapped to him and all of that.
Of course, doing that requires quite a lot of skill if you're not going to
produce a load of crap - myself I always found using a sequencer to be a
far more practical way of producing the performance I wanted. Read as much
or as little into that as you like though, I've never written or built my
own sequencer.
> My current status: sticking with Nebula2, looking for a C++ replacement,
> abandoning Python, contemplating OCaml or Lisp.
>
I suspect you'd get on a lot better with OCaml than Lisp, if only because
the syntax is less likely to cause you pain. Unless you've got used to a
list-oriented world from elsewhere then conceptually OCaml'll be a lot
closer to what you're used to as well, especially if you tend to prefer
expressions to statements.
Brandon J. Van Every
around *.misc to debate it. I know it will invite flames, and that's a
Complete Waste Of Time [TM]. I've had enough of casting pearls before swine
on Usenet, it's not policy anymore.
R. Alan Monroe wrote:
> In article <c3vm3v$2canan$1...@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Brandon
> J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> [my status:] abandoning Python, contemplating OCaml or Lisp.
>
> Any particular reason? Just curious.
Standard Python is a low performance language. There are things to try to
speed it up, like psyco, but my friends haven't reported any experiences
within striking distance of C++. Crossing language boundaries to do the
performance stuff is a rather tacky way to do things. You get to write a
lot of bindings twice, and I wanted to move to Python to reduce gruntwork,
not increase it. All this would have been mitigable, but then I started
looking around for Python 3D code to steal, and realized there isn't much
out there. The stuff I've contemplated writing for the Nebula2 engine,
pretty much I'd have to write from scratch. When I ask in comp.lang.python
about large 3D graphics apps out there, the crickets don't completely chirp
but it's pretty quiet. People don't seem to get past the "ah we're doing
something with the PyOpenGL binding" stage. Received wisdom is to wrap a
C++ 3D engine. Also when I meet with Python users locally in Seattle, they
know tons of groovy things about databasing and communications and
networking, but never a damn thing about 3D graphics or games.
I conclude that Python is currently incapable of doing the heavy lifting of
3D graphics. I expect that may change in the next 3 years, but I don't have
time to fumble along meanwhile. Python simply cannot serve as a C++
replacement. And, I'm not interested in a "C++ for heavy lifting, something
else for scripting" model of application development. It is too much extra
work to maintain the boundary.
Both OCaml and Lisp can be scripted, bytecode compiled, and native compiled.
From the standpoint of the higher level languages, the division between
performance and functionality for C++ and scripting languages is primitive.
There's no particular reason why we should be bouncing between languages to
get this stuff done, other than that C++ is this cruft that game developers
can't seem to let go of. It'll go away in 10 years; I'm moving on today.
Gotta find a way to get more coding done and compete with all those
outsourced Indians - they're the ones who are going to be doing all the C++
/ C# / Java grunt jobs pretty soon here.
Right now I'm blowing off Lisp because a compiled open source implementation
is not available on Windows. Also a standardization / packaging /
convenience culture is lacking. OCaml, in contrast, I can just download and
go. Also, SWIG supports OCaml but not Lisp. In fact there are no good
off-the-shelf C++ to Lisp tools anywhere, according to what people have told
me. Also, OCaml is less of a conceptual leap for a C++ developer. Not
important to me personally, I'm far smarter than a lot of people give me
credit for, but helpful as I try to persuade Nebula2 developers to do it my
way.
Erlang developers are trying to persuade me to do it their way. :-) If I
were doing a MMOG I'd definitely listen, but I'm not, so I'm blowing that
off. For me the mission is 3D graphics, not concurrency, networking, or
distributed systems.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
On Usenet, if you're not an open source hippie who
G.I.L
A few weaknesses in your theory:
1. You assume falsely that there is a percentage larger than .5% which is
interested in content modification.
2. You assume falsely that making the modding tools easier would greatly
increase the percentage of involvement.
3. Making an simpler tool means making a shallower tool. This means the mods
will all look alike.
4. Creating an endless pool of assets for the amateur modder will put a huge
strain on the developer, while the benefit is not clear.
Just as an example: nobody would argue that using a tool like The Games
Factory is infinitely easier than using VC (not to mention the price
differences). Still, for some strange reason, I'm not convinced there is a
larger amount if TGF users over VC for game creation. As a matter of fact, I
wouldn't be surprised if it isn't the other way around!
A lot of games allow simple modding within the game itself, eg changing
player appearance. In that sense, it may be a nice feature to extend these
abilities. But still, we are only talking special fx here, nothing more.
g
Eternal Vigilance
"Brandon J. Van Every" wrote:
I never said do it all at once. But opening up several game aspects
to modding (and increasing the ease via proper tools) will enable
the players creativity (justifying further increments).
The generalization and substitution mechanism will not be as efficient as
'canned' hardcoded mechanisms, but we now have more memory and faster
CPUs then ever (5GHZ soon said Intel).
I saw an example at two online educational companies (university/corporate
level)
I did contract work for. The first did not make it easy to create content
and every bit had to be hand crafted and applied to very limited templates.
That one went bankrupt. The next created authoring tools from the start
and it was amazing how easily professors could build their own custom
content and apply them to the scheduled lessons, automated tests run by the
engine as well as link to other web content, run online simulations etc...
Even with prebuilt contenet (written by the company)
the professors could easily add/remove/modify that content with very
little hands-on learning. Media from preexisting content was simple to add
and adapt. Dozens of Universities and many more colleges are using it now
(all withing 3 years).
>
>
> My current status: sticking with Nebula2, looking for a C++ replacement,
> abandoning Python, contemplating OCaml or Lisp.
>
What will be the main use of the 'script' language you are looking for??
You mention graphics as a key use, but which of the many game graphics
aspects are you planning to be script based.
Ive come to the conclusion (for my own project) that one or more
mini-languages written in C/C++ Macros is the best way to go.
Get the performance of Compiled/Optimized C and be able to tailor
the language constructs to exactly the particular purpose.
An added advantage is that if all else fails you can write the irregular
code in C/C++ inline with the Macro language.
Example - A scenario generator language that does alot of irregular
data assignments and fairly simple 'clause' control logic. Built-in calling of
parameterized 'template' scripts (also written in the scenario language)
and STD engine calls ( ie- place object of type X in vicinity of location L
within max radius R). This language will probably have a simple onepass
variable table builder to assemble variables needed by C before the 'code'
portion (I might simply force the programmer to pre-specify variables with
other Macros first...)
Example - A behavioral language which accesses task/finite state/priority/
object attribute/actions/event mechanism in my engine (calls to the scenario
scripting also) . The behavioral 'solution code' will dwarf the code in the
engine and having it in a higher Macro language will cut down the code size.
Low level 'action' primitives drive the objects (and the action graphics are
choreographed
by yet another mini-language tailored to define state engines for
timing/animations
/synchoniation/sounds/action->event generation). Behaviors are
hierarchical and inherited. Object Attributes can be constants or procedural
'synthetic' functions - calling custom library routines written in the same
behavioral script (or a hard coded standard function).
Additional mini-scripts : Particle engine, object effect interactions,
scenery
contour pattern generation (for an infinite universe system), Text Dialog
with imbededd logic and event spawn (see NeverWinterNights dialog mechanism)
The game 'engine' is too complicated for a one script language that fits all
these
diverse needs (and would do an awful lot of C (fast engine) calls anyway
(requiring
wonderful C style parameters). I suppose I could do it all in one, but
debugging
such a mass (double the size quadruple the bugs) would take much more time...
I am intending a 'Macro' mechanism that allows different script types to
exist within the same file (encapsulation) using something similar
to the C _ASM { code } to try to limit script file explosion.
Runtime libraries will be built from all the localized pieces spread thru
the game definition files.