realism (was Re: Some peculiarities)
Eep²
> Eep² wrote:
>
> > Not at all! Sounds like Maxis' next Sim game! The Sims is close to that but it would be nice to have more realistic simulation (player, AI, environment, etc) in 3D games in general. Hopefully developers will start implementing these things soon!
> >
> Realism and good gameplay are not synonymous. Realism *can* enhance gameplay,
> by increasing the verisimilitude of the game experience, but true realism can be a burden.
>
> If Tomb Raider was "realistic", then Lara Croft would not be able to run through hundreds
> of miles of caverns without resting. And by resting, I don't mean sitting on a rock until
> your fatigue bar peaks above the red. I mean 6-8 hours of uninterrupted slumber. If
> Tomb Raider was realistic, Lara would die of exposure after about three days. Faster
> if she swims. Hypothermia is realistic.
>
> Human beings don't have "hit points" that are restored by "med packs". We have
> internal organs, each with their own structural and functional contributions to our
> health. If Tomb Raider was realistic, Lara would not be able to continue running
> at top speed having been shot numerous times. Nor would she be able
> to fully recover from life-threatening gunshot wounds by applying simple field first aid.
>
> In the real world, field med packs don't heal wounds, they slow down the rate at
> which wounds kill you. If Lara suffered even one gunshot wound in the real world,
> she'd have to go to the hospital and spend several weeks, if not months, recovering
> in physical therapy, med packs or no med packs. That's reality.
>
> But none of this realism would make Tomb Raider a better game.
How do YOU know? I think they would. While it may lose some mindless action fans, I think hyperrealism would attract other fans. I'd LOVE to have to play a game VERy realistically instead of all the unbelievable bullshit in most games these days. I LIKE realistic games--and the more realistic the better because it will feel more "real" (hence, realism) and true instead of fake and false.
> In the case of the Sims, there are numerous aspects of "real life" that that team
> intentionally left out of the product. Not because they'd be too hard to simulate, but
> because they would not be fun and would not contribute to the essential economies
> of the game.
How do you know? Anything designed well can contribute to a game's essential economy(ies).
> Realism is not the ultimate goal of design. Suspension of disbelief is. When you
> watch a Shwartzenegger movie, you *expect* to see cartoon violence. That
> suspension of disbelief enhances the narrative.
Sorry, but most games are VERY unrealistic in their shoot-to-kill ratio, ammo depletion, physics, AI, etc, etc, etc. Poor programming and design get in the way of belief suspension all too often--especially when games have their corners cut in order to get released.
> Likewise, when you're designing an immersive adventure game, the mechanics of
> human survival need to be presented in a way that enhances the experience of the
> game. A good example is the food/medpack vending machine present in so many
> games. Is it realistic in say, System Shock II, that I'd bother collecting nanites to
> get at the food and meds in these systems? Or would I just disassemble (or destroy)
> the thing like a pistachio nut? But an essential economy of the game (and hence,
> a source of fun) is the nanite budget. So, I suspend my disbelief about vandalizing
> vending machines in the interest of having fun.
>
> From a technological point of view, of course, we should be looking for better
> and better ways to simulate reality, just a film technology seeks better and
> better ways to capture reality. But given a complete palette, a good designer
> will know which aspects of reality to present and which to fudge or ignore completely
> in the interest of better gameplay.
Good is relative. What's "better gameplay" to one designer may not be to another designer. It's all relative. I say more realism is the key and 3D games are getting more and more realistic all the time. It's already happening whether you'd like to admit it or not. :)
Keesia Wirt/Shawn Hanson
> Jason Shankel wrote:
>
> > Eep² wrote:
> >
> > > Not at all! Sounds like Maxis' next Sim game! The Sims is close to that but it would be nice to have more realistic simulation (player, AI, environment, etc) in 3D games in general. Hopefully developers will start implementing these things soon!
> > >
> > Realism and good gameplay are not synonymous. Realism *can* enhance gameplay,
> > by increasing the verisimilitude of the game experience, but true realism can be a burden.
> >
> > If Tomb Raider was "realistic", then Lara Croft would not be able to run through hundreds
> > of miles of caverns without resting. And by resting, I don't mean sitting on a rock until
> > your fatigue bar peaks above the red. I mean 6-8 hours of uninterrupted slumber. If
> > Tomb Raider was realistic, Lara would die of exposure after about three days. Faster
> > if she swims. Hypothermia is realistic.
> >
> > Human beings don't have "hit points" that are restored by "med packs". We have
> > internal organs, each with their own structural and functional contributions to our
> > health. If Tomb Raider was realistic, Lara would not be able to continue running
> > at top speed having been shot numerous times. Nor would she be able
> > to fully recover from life-threatening gunshot wounds by applying simple field first aid.
> >
> > In the real world, field med packs don't heal wounds, they slow down the rate at
> > which wounds kill you. If Lara suffered even one gunshot wound in the real world,
> > she'd have to go to the hospital and spend several weeks, if not months, recovering
> > in physical therapy, med packs or no med packs. That's reality.
> >
> > But none of this realism would make Tomb Raider a better game.
>
> How do YOU know? I think they would. While it may lose some mindless action fans, I think hyperrealism would attract other fans. I'd LOVE to have to play a game VERy realistically instead of all the unbelievable bullshit in most games these days. I LIKE realistic games--and the more realistic the better because it will feel more "real" (hence, realism) and true instead of fake and false.
So you would love to play a game where you get shot once and then have to go to the hospital and recuperate in real time? The problem with "hyperrealism" as a concept is that the job of making the game hyperrealistic would *never* end. *Something* would have to be left out [unless you have some insider knowledge on how to model "reality"], so why bother trying to make a hyperrealistic game
for people that will just say things like, "You didn't model the friction coefficient of wood right!"
> > In the case of the Sims, there are numerous aspects of "real life" that that team
> > intentionally left out of the product. Not because they'd be too hard to simulate, but
> > because they would not be fun and would not contribute to the essential economies
> > of the game.
>
> How do you know? Anything designed well can contribute to a game's essential economy(ies).
Okay then, I challenge you to describe how realistic, real-time sleeping will contribute to a game. And saying, "If it's designed well" is not an acceptable answer.
> > Realism is not the ultimate goal of design. Suspension of disbelief is. When you
> > watch a Shwartzenegger movie, you *expect* to see cartoon violence. That
> > suspension of disbelief enhances the narrative.
>
> Sorry, but most games are VERY unrealistic in their shoot-to-kill ratio, ammo depletion, physics, AI, etc, etc, etc. Poor programming and design get in the way of belief suspension all too often--especially when games have their corners cut in order to get released.
You didn't address his point, that realism is not the ultimate goal of design. So what if poorly design gets in the way of belief suspension, what about the games that are well-designed, immersive, *and* "unrealistic"?
> > Likewise, when you're designing an immersive adventure game, the mechanics of
> > human survival need to be presented in a way that enhances the experience of the
> > game. A good example is the food/medpack vending machine present in so many
> > games. Is it realistic in say, System Shock II, that I'd bother collecting nanites to
> > get at the food and meds in these systems? Or would I just disassemble (or destroy)
> > the thing like a pistachio nut? But an essential economy of the game (and hence,
> > a source of fun) is the nanite budget. So, I suspend my disbelief about vandalizing
> > vending machines in the interest of having fun.
> >
> > From a technological point of view, of course, we should be looking for better
> > and better ways to simulate reality, just a film technology seeks better and
> > better ways to capture reality. But given a complete palette, a good designer
> > will know which aspects of reality to present and which to fudge or ignore completely
> > in the interest of better gameplay.
>
> Good is relative. What's "better gameplay" to one designer may not be to another designer. It's all relative.
Everything is relative only to the point that it matters to continue to differentiate between things/concepts/degrees of being. Why split this particular hair when it's obvious that people will have different opinions regarding a designer's skill/ability?
> I say more realism is the key and 3D games are getting more and more realistic all the time. It's already happening whether you'd like to admit it or not. :)
I disagree. 3D games are just getting better at depicting those selective bits of reality that they choose to portray [light, physics, etc.]. They aren't becoming more "real" any more than better film stock made movies more "real."
Eep²
> Eep² wrote:
>
> > Jason Shankel wrote:
> >
> > > Eep² wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not at all! Sounds like Maxis' next Sim game! The Sims is close to that but it would be nice to have more realistic simulation (player, AI, environment, etc) in 3D games in general. Hopefully developers will start implementing these things soon!
> > > >
> > > Realism and good gameplay are not synonymous. Realism *can* enhance gameplay,
> > > by increasing the verisimilitude of the game experience, but true realism can be a burden.
> > >
> > > If Tomb Raider was "realistic", then Lara Croft would not be able to run through hundreds
> > > of miles of caverns without resting. And by resting, I don't mean sitting on a rock until
> > > your fatigue bar peaks above the red. I mean 6-8 hours of uninterrupted slumber. If
> > > Tomb Raider was realistic, Lara would die of exposure after about three days. Faster
> > > if she swims. Hypothermia is realistic.
> > >
> > > Human beings don't have "hit points" that are restored by "med packs". We have
> > > internal organs, each with their own structural and functional contributions to our
> > > health. If Tomb Raider was realistic, Lara would not be able to continue running
> > > at top speed having been shot numerous times. Nor would she be able
> > > to fully recover from life-threatening gunshot wounds by applying simple field first aid.
> > >
> > > In the real world, field med packs don't heal wounds, they slow down the rate at
> > > which wounds kill you. If Lara suffered even one gunshot wound in the real world,
> > > she'd have to go to the hospital and spend several weeks, if not months, recovering
> > > in physical therapy, med packs or no med packs. That's reality.
> > >
> > > But none of this realism would make Tomb Raider a better game.
> >
> > How do YOU know? I think they would. While it may lose some mindless action fans, I think hyperrealism would attract other fans. I'd LOVE to have to play a game VERy realistically instead of all the unbelievable bullshit in most games these days. I LIKE realistic games--and the more realistic the better because it will feel more "real" (hence, realism) and true instead of fake and false.
> >
> So you would love to play a game where you get shot once and then have to go to the hospital and recuperate in real time?
I would like a game where I actually had to STRUGGLE to not get shot, realizing that I AM vulnerable and not immortal where I can rely on a saved game. This is why I like Thief, where the emphasis is on stealth and sneaking vs brute force kill-everything-on-the-screen like most action games. I would like it Tomb Raider had more emphasis on exploration and adventure instead of shooting and killing (and the latest TR4 is somewhat more towards this approach, but it could be better). This is also why I like simulation-type games more, like Maxis' Sim series, Civilization, Alpha Centauri, Pharaoh, and other RTS games like WarCraft 2, Dungeon Keeper 2, Homeworld, etc.
> The problem with "hyperrealism" as a concept is that the job of making the game hyperrealistic would *never* end. *Something* would have to be left out [unless you have some insider knowledge on how to model "reality"], so why bother trying to make a hyperrealistic game for people that will just say things like, "You didn't model the friction coefficient of wood right!"
There are already plenty of gamers who criticise realism in games today. AI, physics, locations, character motivation, plot, etc, etc, etc--it's all here being criticized already. I doubt game developers will ALWAYS get reality correct in games, but I think it's a very challengable, worthy goal to reach for: reality is far more interesting to model than fantasy. Theoretical physics is proving that every day.
> > > In the case of the Sims, there are numerous aspects of "real life" that that team
> > > intentionally left out of the product. Not because they'd be too hard to simulate, but
> > > because they would not be fun and would not contribute to the essential economies
> > > of the game.
> >
> > How do you know? Anything designed well can contribute to a game's essential economy(ies).
>
> Okay then, I challenge you to describe how realistic, real-time sleeping will contribute to a game. And saying, "If it's designed well" is not an acceptable answer.
Contribution is relative. Even if the player doesn't have to actually sit there for 8 hours letting the character sleep, at least the IDEA that the character needs to rest would be refreshing. There have been games that've done this before. It can easily be shown as a switch from night to morning, with a fade in/out in between. RPG and adventure games would perhaps benefit from it the most, but then games in general are taking on other genre elements (i.e. action-adventure) so there's no reason these things can't be implemented into them accordingly.
For a more real-time approach to sleep-wake cycles, take online-only on-all-the-time games like Ultima Online, EverQuest, 10six, etc. As games become increasingly real-time and reality-mimmicking, they will have to adapt to real-life time and the cycles associated with them. As players spend longer and longer amounts of time playing games, their own bodily functions will begin to become apparent through the characters they are playing.
> > > Realism is not the ultimate goal of design. Suspension of disbelief is. When you
> > > watch a Shwartzenegger movie, you *expect* to see cartoon violence. That
> > > suspension of disbelief enhances the narrative.
> >
> > Sorry, but most games are VERY unrealistic in their shoot-to-kill ratio, ammo depletion, physics, AI, etc, etc, etc. Poor programming and design get in the way of belief suspension all too often--especially when games have their corners cut in order to get released.
>
> You didn't address his point, that realism is not the ultimate goal of design. So what if poorly design gets in the way of belief suspension, what about the games that are well-designed, immersive, *and* "unrealistic"?
What MAKES games immersive? And I should note that I am really only referring to 3D game design, which I think are by their nature more visually realistic than 2D and text games. I think when it comes to 3D games, realism IS a big part of design, but there are many 2D adventure, RPG, and strategy games that are realistic looking, too.
But it's not just visual realism that's important. Character (AI) and environment (physics) interaction, plot/story, etc, also play a part in game designed realism. All these things contribute to immersion and willingly suspending belief for a pseudo-realistic game. Just look at why most Half-Life (HL) players don't like Xen (the alien world) because they felt it "killed" HL's "real-world" immersion up to that level (and because of Xen's annoying precision jumping at the beginning). Xen had less gravity so longer jumps were possible, but because it was not familiar (unrealistic) to most people (unless perhaps you've been to the Moon or in a high-enough-altitude plane to feel the effects of near or full weightlessness), Xen was not enjoyed by most players as the rest of HL was--at least this is how I felt. I also didn't like the rehashed alien-invasionesque plot of HL, but at least the story held together throughout the game--unlike most FPSes.
Anyway, HL only held up because it was firmly based in realism and, like Duke Nukem 3D, the familiar environments allowed acceptance of ridiculously silly aliens/monsters.
> > > Likewise, when you're designing an immersive adventure game, the mechanics of
> > > human survival need to be presented in a way that enhances the experience of the
> > > game. A good example is the food/medpack vending machine present in so many
> > > games. Is it realistic in say, System Shock II, that I'd bother collecting nanites to
> > > get at the food and meds in these systems? Or would I just disassemble (or destroy)
> > > the thing like a pistachio nut? But an essential economy of the game (and hence,
> > > a source of fun) is the nanite budget. So, I suspend my disbelief about vandalizing
> > > vending machines in the interest of having fun.
> > >
> > > From a technological point of view, of course, we should be looking for better
> > > and better ways to simulate reality, just a film technology seeks better and
> > > better ways to capture reality. But given a complete palette, a good designer
> > > will know which aspects of reality to present and which to fudge or ignore completely
> > > in the interest of better gameplay.
> >
> > Good is relative. What's "better gameplay" to one designer may not be to another designer. It's all relative.
>
> Everything is relative only to the point that it matters to continue to differentiate between things/concepts/degrees of being. Why split this particular hair when it's obvious that people will have different opinions regarding a designer's skill/ability?
Perhaps you should be asking Jason that. Sometimes people need the obvious pointed out to them. :)
> > I say more realism is the key and 3D games are getting more and more realistic all the time. It's already happening whether you'd like to admit it or not. :)
>
> I disagree. 3D games are just getting better at depicting those selective bits of reality that they choose to portray [light, physics, etc.]. They aren't becoming more "real" any more than better film stock made movies more "real."
How ironic that just above you elaborated on relativity yet you failed to apply it in this context. Those "selective bits of reality" are where "3D games are just getting better at depicting" them. Hence, relative reality.
But I still can argue that more and more 3D games I read about are becoming based on more realistic things. SWAT teams, undercover cops, gangsters, military platoons/squads (whatever) and individual soldiers, thievery--see a pattern yet? Of course these are just mainly in the PC FPS genre. I can't forget N64's Mario and Link and whatever characters make up PSX games (I don't do consoles). But I still see 3D games in general looking more and more visually realistic with more realistic effects (weather, physics, lighting, shadows, bumpmapping, etc, etc), higher resolutions, more complex 3D objects--the list goes on and on. http://tnlc.com/eep/compare.html to see how some 3D games compare, for some examples. Tomb Raider has definitely gotten more realistic in some respects (still the stupid plots though).
And with Dreamcast, PSX2, Nintendo Dolphin, and GeForce et al PC vid cards, games will only get even MORE realistic. It's already happening whether people want to admit it or not.
Keesia Wirt/Shawn Hanson
All I'm saying is that, given infinite resources, programmers will never model "reality" perfectly. Programming reality will always be relative as the programmers will have to make, for the most part, subjective decisions about how to model AI, physics, etc. This is evident to an extent now where Thief's Dark Engine has a much better physics and locational sound system, while Q3 has better visual specs. This doesn't even take into account the plethora of other proprietary 3D engines that are being developed or have been developed [Lithtech 2, Rogue Spear's engine, Unreal, etc.].
However, I think I'm kind of arguing a different point than you are, so let me just say that I'm also looking forward to more "realistic" games [I love Thief, btw, esp. the mantling, the leaning around corners and the effect of sound and light on stealth], and I'm looking forward to the first photorealistic game with great physics, AI and sound. However, I don't think the hyperrealistic genre will replace the run-and-gun genre. I think it'll just give less "twitchy" gamers an alternative [Rogue Spear and SWAT 3 are prime examples].
> > > > In the case of the Sims, there are numerous aspects of "real life" that that team
> > > > intentionally left out of the product. Not because they'd be too hard to simulate, but
> > > > because they would not be fun and would not contribute to the essential economies
> > > > of the game.
> > >
> > > How do you know? Anything designed well can contribute to a game's essential economy(ies).
> >
> > Okay then, I challenge you to describe how realistic, real-time sleeping will contribute to a game. And saying, "If it's designed well" is not an acceptable answer.
>
> Contribution is relative. Even if the player doesn't have to actually sit there for 8 hours letting the character sleep, at least the IDEA that the character needs to rest would be refreshing. There have been games that've done this before. It can easily be shown as a switch from night to morning, with a fade in/out in between. RPG and adventure games would perhaps benefit from it the most, but then games in general are taking on other genre elements (i.e. action-adventure) so there's no reason these things can't be implemented into them accordingly.
>
> For a more real-time approach to sleep-wake cycles, take online-only on-all-the-time games like Ultima Online, EverQuest, 10six, etc. As games become increasingly real-time and reality-mimmicking, they will have to adapt to real-life time and the cycles associated with them. As players spend longer and longer amounts of time playing games, their own bodily functions will begin to become apparent through the characters they are playing.
>
> > > > Realism is not the ultimate goal of design. Suspension of disbelief is. When you
> > > > watch a Shwartzenegger movie, you *expect* to see cartoon violence. That
> > > > suspension of disbelief enhances the narrative.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but most games are VERY unrealistic in their shoot-to-kill ratio, ammo depletion, physics, AI, etc, etc, etc. Poor programming and design get in the way of belief suspension all too often--especially when games have their corners cut in order to get released.
> >
> > You didn't address his point, that realism is not the ultimate goal of design. So what if poorly design gets in the way of belief suspension, what about the games that are well-designed, immersive, *and* "unrealistic"?
>
> What MAKES games immersive? And I should note that I am really only referring to 3D game design, which I think are by their nature more visually realistic than 2D and text games. I think when it comes to 3D games, realism IS a big part of design, but there are many 2D adventure, RPG, and strategy games that are realistic looking, too.
Well, lots of things make games immersive. Let's take SS1, for instance. Crappy graphics [by today's standards] but the level design, audio logs, and just general atmosphere make it more immersive than a lot of today's crappier FPS's. Why?, I don't know, "immersive" is one of those [relative ;) ] things that most people can agree on with a great game that has it [SS2 or Thief, to pick a couple of my favorites], but they'll have a hard time explaining why. Immersiveness is greater than the sum of its parts ;)
> But it's not just visual realism that's important. Character (AI) and environment (physics) interaction, plot/story, etc, also play a part in game designed realism. All these things contribute to immersion and willingly suspending belief for a pseudo-realistic game. Just look at why most Half-Life (HL) players don't like Xen (the alien world) because they felt it "killed" HL's "real-world" immersion up to that level (and because of Xen's annoying precision jumping at the beginning). Xen had less gravity so longer jumps were possible, but because it was not familiar (unrealistic) to most people (unless perhaps you've been to the Moon or in a high-enough-altitude plane to feel the effects of near or full weightlessness), Xen was not enjoyed by most players as the rest of HL was--at least this is how I felt. I also didn't like the rehashed alien-invasionesque plot of HL, but at least the story held together throughout the game--unlike most FPSes.
This is where I disagree. "Realism" is not an objective standard to which all designers will flock at the expense of *all* run-and-guns like Half-Life [I didn't mind Xen, by the way, I guess that particular taste is relative ;) ]. Take Bernard Langham's example about movies [a couple posts down] where he talked about the move toward movies that show the consequences of violence. Was this good? Absolutely. Did it replace the cartoony violence of action movies. Absolutely not, and it never will. The same thing appears to be happening with games that are including more realistic elements, but the only thing I see killing "traditional" run-and-gun FPS's is not a focus on realism, but a sense of boredom with the same old find-the-key, shoot-the-bad-guys gameplay.
> Anyway, HL only held up because it was firmly based in realism and, like Duke Nukem 3D, the familiar environments allowed acceptance of ridiculously silly aliens/monsters.
Well *I* thought HL held up because of good level/enemy/weapon design and a consistent, never-interrupted narrative. A counter-example to your above claim would be Jedi Knight, which featured some of the best "realistic" level design of imaginery locations [i.e., the Fuel Station] I've ever seen, and not once did I say "That thing sucks! That's not realistic, my game is ruined!" ;) And by the same token Rogue Spear isn't objectively better than Jedi Knight just because it's more "realistic." It's a matter of taste, which is relative ;)
> > > > Likewise, when you're designing an immersive adventure game, the mechanics of
> > > > human survival need to be presented in a way that enhances the experience of the
> > > > game. A good example is the food/medpack vending machine present in so many
> > > > games. Is it realistic in say, System Shock II, that I'd bother collecting nanites to
> > > > get at the food and meds in these systems? Or would I just disassemble (or destroy)
> > > > the thing like a pistachio nut? But an essential economy of the game (and hence,
> > > > a source of fun) is the nanite budget. So, I suspend my disbelief about vandalizing
> > > > vending machines in the interest of having fun.
> > > >
> > > > From a technological point of view, of course, we should be looking for better
> > > > and better ways to simulate reality, just a film technology seeks better and
> > > > better ways to capture reality. But given a complete palette, a good designer
> > > > will know which aspects of reality to present and which to fudge or ignore completely
> > > > in the interest of better gameplay.
> > >
> > > Good is relative. What's "better gameplay" to one designer may not be to another designer. It's all relative.
> >
> > Everything is relative only to the point that it matters to continue to differentiate between things/concepts/degrees of being. Why split this particular hair when it's obvious that people will have different opinions regarding a designer's skill/ability?
>
> Perhaps you should be asking Jason that. Sometimes people need the obvious pointed out to them. :)
>
> > > I say more realism is the key and 3D games are getting more and more realistic all the time. It's already happening whether you'd like to admit it or not. :)
> >
> > I disagree. 3D games are just getting better at depicting those selective bits of reality that they choose to portray [light, physics, etc.]. They aren't becoming more "real" any more than better film stock made movies more "real."
>
> How ironic that just above you elaborated on relativity yet you failed to apply it in this context. Those "selective bits of reality" are where "3D games are just getting better at depicting" them. Hence, relative reality.
I didn't fail to apply it, hence the use of the term "selective." Any modeling of "reality" is going to be subjective and "relative" to other games/models/designs by default. That's what I was aiming for, anyway ;P
> But I still can argue that more and more 3D games I read about are becoming based on more realistic things. SWAT teams, undercover cops, gangsters, military platoons/squads (whatever) and individual soldiers, thievery--see a pattern yet? Of course these are just mainly in the PC FPS genre. I can't forget N64's Mario and Link and whatever characters make up PSX games (I don't do consoles). But I still see 3D games in general looking more and more visually realistic with more realistic effects (weather, physics, lighting, shadows, bumpmapping, etc, etc), higher resolutions, more complex 3D objects--the list goes on and on. http://tnlc.com/eep/compare.html to see how some 3D games compare, for some examples. Tomb Raider has definitely gotten more realistic in some respects (still the stupid plots though).
>
> And with Dreamcast, PSX2, Nintendo Dolphin, and GeForce et al PC vid cards, games will only get even MORE realistic. It's already happening whether people want to admit it or not.
I agree that technology is allowing more realistic environments, but I don't think that they will naturally replace less "realistic" games due to their inherent superiority. And I think an important distinction needs to be made between games with realistic features/options/gameplay elements and games with realistic premises/settings. SS2 has realistic gameplay elements [recoil, object physics, limited inventory, gun degradation], arbitrary "realistic" elements for gameplay reasons [guns that degrade at an accelerated rate] and an unrealistic premise [alien takeover of a FTL ship]. Most people would agree that the realistic elements were great and immersive [esp. the sound] while readily admitting that the premise isn't plausible. But that doesn't seem to hurt people's enjoyment of it, and I think this is what we can look forward to; to games that model their particular take on reality [or the "reality" within their chosen setting] incredibly
well while not necessarily being the be-all, end-all representation of reality for others to strive for [since it'll never happen, modeling reality is as relative as reality itself].
SpammersDie
Crappy
>graphics [by today's standards] but the level design, audio logs, and just
general
>atmosphere >make it more immersive than a lot of today's crappier FPS's.
Why?,
>I don't know, "immersive" is one of those [relative ;) ] things that most
people can
>agree on with a great game >that has it [SS2 or Thief, to pick a couple of
my favorites],
>but they'll have a hard time explaining why. Immersiveness is greater than
the sum of its parts ;)
All this talk about SS1 and Thief reminds of one of most UN-immersive
things about Thief (and SS2) - safely descending ladders. Getting onto a
ladder when you're standing above it is an adventure all in itself and never
fails to throw me right out of my immersion.
What's interesting is that SS1 had a much simpler low-tech solution for
descending ladders - you don't. When you need to get down to a lower level ,
you just jump. The game designers eliminated all fall damage from the game.
And I've never heard anyone (including me) bitch about how SS1 has
"unrealistic" ladders or falls. It was great tradeoff of one realism (the
ability to jump hundreds of feet without getting scratched) for a
higher-level realism (the ability to treat ladders as inconsequential.)
In other words, realism is sometimes less important than being
self-consistent.
Eep²
> >Well, lots of things make games immersive. Let's take SS1, for instance. Crappy
> >graphics [by today's standards] but the level design, audio logs, and just general
> >atmosphere >make it more immersive than a lot of today's crappier FPS's. Why?,
> >I don't know, "immersive" is one of those [relative ;) ] things that most people can
> >agree on with a great game >that has it [SS2 or Thief, to pick a couple of my favorites],
> >but they'll have a hard time explaining why. Immersiveness is greater than the sum of its parts ;)
>
> All this talk about SS1 and Thief reminds of one of most UN-immersive
> things about Thief (and SS2) - safely descending ladders. Getting onto a
> ladder when you're standing above it is an adventure all in itself and never
> fails to throw me right out of my immersion.
>
> What's interesting is that SS1 had a much simpler low-tech solution for
> descending ladders - you don't. When you need to get down to a lower level ,
> you just jump. The game designers eliminated all fall damage from the game.
>
> And I've never heard anyone (including me) bitch about how SS1 has
> "unrealistic" ladders or falls. It was great tradeoff of one realism (the
> ability to jump hundreds of feet without getting scratched) for a
> higher-level realism (the ability to treat ladders as inconsequential.)
>
> In other words, realism is sometimes less important than being
> self-consistent.
Ladders could be EASILY usable if game designers simply assigned an action sequence to it, in which the player's character would "grab" the ladder and square up onto it. Next...
Javier Arevalo
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>> But none of this realism would make Tomb Raider a better game.
>
>How do YOU know? I think they would. While it may lose some
>mindless action fans, I think hyperrealism would attract other
>fans.
I hate to ask, but how many succesful commercial games have you
designed? I don't mean to say you're not entitled to have an opinion,
but I think your opinion is based on your personal taste, not on
real-life experience.
>Good is relative. What's "better gameplay" to one designer may not
>be to another designer. It's all relative.
Try to explain that when your hyper-realistic game has been widely
ignored or rejected by the market: "rejected? well, that's relative".
:)
Greets
Javier Arevalo
Technology Lead @ the Commandos Team
http://web.jet.es/jare
change nospam to jare in the address to send email
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3893383E...@tnlc.com...
>
> Ladders could be EASILY usable if game designers simply assigned an action
sequence to it, in which the player's character would "grab" the ladder and
square up onto it. Next...
>
And how would that work without shattering the interface consistency? At the
moment, most FPS games have not just one input = one action but also
constant input. Letting go of the keys or finding that input suddenly stops
working isn't good enough. A more useful method for games with a use button
would be to use the ladder from the top to grab on to it (with no action
sequence). Where there's no use button jump might make a good substitute.
--------------------------------------------------
psy...@cowderoy.co.uk
'In Ankh-Morpork even the shit have a street to itself...
Truly this is a land of opportunity.' - Detritus, Men at Arms
Eep²
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:12:44 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >> But none of this realism would make Tomb Raider a better game.
> >
> >How do YOU know? I think they would. While it may lose some
> >mindless action fans, I think hyperrealism would attract other
> >fans.
>
> I hate to ask, but how many succesful commercial games have you
> designed? I don't mean to say you're not entitled to have an opinion,
> but I think your opinion is based on your personal taste, not on
> real-life experience.
If Maxis (who the person I responded to supposedly worked for) did some kind of marketing survey to see how gamers would react to "hyper-realism" in games, I would perhaps be able to accept what he (Maxis) says with respect to this more seriously. However, I doubt such surveys have been done.
> >Good is relative. What's "better gameplay" to one designer may not
> >be to another designer. It's all relative.
>
> Try to explain that when your hyper-realistic game has been widely
> ignored or rejected by the market: "rejected? well, that's relative".
> :)
I just don't see that to be the case, however. 3D games continue to get more and more realistic and yet they are still popular. Why do you think Quake and Unreal are so popular? Because they look VERY visually realistic. I've heard the whole POINT of Quake 3 is to show off the realistic 3D engine, not the gameplay. YOU do the math...
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3893383E...@tnlc.com...
> >
> > Ladders could be EASILY usable if game designers simply assigned an action
> sequence to it, in which the player's character would "grab" the ladder and
> square up onto it. Next...
> >
>
> And how would that work without shattering the interface consistency? At the
> moment, most FPS games have not just one input = one action but also
> constant input. Letting go of the keys or finding that input suddenly stops
> working isn't good enough. A more useful method for games with a use button
> would be to use the ladder from the top to grab on to it (with no action
> sequence). Where there's no use button jump might make a good substitute.
Well, duh, yes, of course one shouldn't have to continually hold the action key down while on the ladder. The initial "grab" would just be to "latch" onto the ladder. Once "latched", the player character would stay "stuck" to it until pressing the action key again ("ungrab") and/or jumping off, like you suggested.
Oh and interface consistency is relative. All games (FPSes aren't the only kind, you know) don't have the same interfaces. Why is it most 3rd-person action-adventure games don't have trouble with ladders? Perhaps FPSes could learn some things from 'em, eh? <chuckle>
Jason Shankel
> tangible objects."
>
> FACT -- Force beams are make-believe.
Electromagnatism is relative.
>
>
> 4. "Holograms and force beams can be augmented with replicator
> technology to provide actual substance."
>
> FACT -- Replicators are make-believe.
The second law of thermodynamics is relative
>
>
> 5. "An animate object is comprised of a partially stable form of
> matter created by the Holodeck replicators for use in the Holodeck
> only. This material is stable only within a Holodeck or holosuite, and
> degrades into energy if removed."
>
> FACT -- Such a "partially stable form of matter" is make-believe.
>
Particle physics is relative. What some scientists consider the "standard"
model might not be standard for me.
See, Brian, that's the problem with us game developers, we let little
things like electomagnatism, thermodynamics and quantum
mechanics get in the way of giving the customer what they want.
So why don't we get off our dimwitted fat-cat asses and get to work
on that perpetual motion machine?
Based on Eep's inspirational posts, I've just submitted a proposal
to Maxis for a new game. Sure, it's top secret right now, but I can
tell you that it involves a matter/anti-matter mix chamber.
Ugh...it must be Monday.
--
Jason Shankel
Maxis/EA
s h a n k e l
at
p o b o x . c o m
"Let's teach those robots how to play hardball."
- Laurie Anderson
Enjoy smooth, refreshing OpenTrek at http://www.pobox.com/~shankel/opentrek.html
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3893875B...@tnlc.com...
> Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO wrote:
>
> > Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3893383E...@tnlc.com...
> > >
> > > Ladders could be EASILY usable if game designers simply assigned an
action
> > sequence to it, in which the player's character would "grab" the ladder
and
> > square up onto it. Next...
> > >
> >
> > And how would that work without shattering the interface consistency? At
the
> > moment, most FPS games have not just one input = one action but also
> > constant input. Letting go of the keys or finding that input suddenly
stops
> > working isn't good enough. A more useful method for games with a use
button
> > would be to use the ladder from the top to grab on to it (with no action
> > sequence). Where there's no use button jump might make a good
substitute.
>
> Well, duh, yes, of course one shouldn't have to continually hold the
action key down while on the ladder. The initial "grab" would just be to
"latch" onto the ladder. Once "latched", the player character would stay
"stuck" to it until pressing the action key again ("ungrab") and/or jumping
off, like you suggested.
>
It was more the idea of having to sit about watching the grab action
positioning the player on the ladder I was bothered about.
> Oh and interface consistency is relative.
It's consistency within the game's own interface. Here I'm assuming that
FPSes all have as a minimum the mouselook+two axes of directional movement
system (probably with jump and crouch as well).
>All games (FPSes aren't the only kind, you know) don't have the same
interfaces. Why is it most 3rd-person action-adventure games don't have
trouble with ladders? Perhaps FPSes could learn some things from 'em, eh?
<chuckle>
>
It's a different setup. FPS tends to put players on a slightly closer level
of control than 3rd person games, especially as so many 3rd person games are
designed with the limitations of console joypads in mind - it's typically
the difference between pressing the direction to move in and setting an
angle and moving. 3rd person games can more often afford to let the player
sit through a canned animation. Another good example of games with no
problem with ladders would be the latest two games in the Final Fantasy
series - they do both through one button and positional context, but the
majority of the action in the field screens is really conversation anyway.
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3893864C...@tnlc.com...
> Javier Arevalo wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:12:44 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> > <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> But none of this realism would make Tomb Raider a better game.
> > >
> > >How do YOU know? I think they would. While it may lose some
> > >mindless action fans, I think hyperrealism would attract other
> > >fans.
> >
> > I hate to ask, but how many succesful commercial games have you
> > designed? I don't mean to say you're not entitled to have an opinion,
> > but I think your opinion is based on your personal taste, not on
> > real-life experience.
>
> If Maxis (who the person I responded to supposedly worked for) did some
kind of marketing survey to see how gamers would react to "hyper-realism" in
games, I would perhaps be able to accept what he (Maxis) says with respect
to this more seriously. However, I doubt such surveys have been done.
>
OK, go find a nice wide number of NGs and do a straw-poll. Ask players if
they want to have to watch their character take a dump every couple of
hours. Or have to role-play months in hospital in real-time. Or have a few
hours with a black screen as they sleep. Given what I know of people, I
imagine that there wouldn't be too many of them, and that USENET would
probably be turning up more than the true average as well.
> > >Good is relative. What's "better gameplay" to one designer may not
> > >be to another designer. It's all relative.
> >
> > Try to explain that when your hyper-realistic game has been widely
> > ignored or rejected by the market: "rejected? well, that's relative".
> > :)
>
> I just don't see that to be the case, however. 3D games continue to get
more and more realistic and yet they are still popular. Why do you think
Quake and Unreal are so popular? Because they look VERY visually realistic.
IME the main reason Unreal Tournament is popular is the gameplay. It looks
damn pretty too, but so do a few other games. And while they're visually
realistic (actually, I don't think they really are that much, different
argument though), that's where the realism ends. I don't recall ever seeing
a bot relieving itself on the spot as a volley of rockets flies over it's
head. Or being able to steer myself in mid-air. In fact, UT is in places
less realistic than Unreal. A better comparison might be Trespasser (widely
regarded as crap), or the more realistic flight sims which tend to sell to a
fairly small market.
>I've heard the whole POINT of Quake 3 is to show off the realistic 3D
engine, not the gameplay.
>
Mainly from people who think it's gameplay sucks, I expect. While I don't
much like it, there are others who consider it the ultimate deathmatch game.
If you ask me they need six rockets shoved up their arse at once, but that's
a different matter ;-)
Eep²
> Hey, I thought you'd killfiled me?
New ISP; new news server. Behave and I won't have to filter you again. :)
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3893875B...@tnlc.com...
> > Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO wrote:
> >
> > > Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3893383E...@tnlc.com...
> > > >
> > > > Ladders could be EASILY usable if game designers simply assigned an action
> > > sequence to it, in which the player's character would "grab" the ladder and
> > > square up onto it. Next...
> > > >
> > >
> > > And how would that work without shattering the interface consistency? At the
> > > moment, most FPS games have not just one input = one action but also
> > > constant input. Letting go of the keys or finding that input suddenly stops
> > > working isn't good enough. A more useful method for games with a use button
> > > would be to use the ladder from the top to grab on to it (with no action
> > > sequence). Where there's no use button jump might make a good substitute.
> >
> > Well, duh, yes, of course one shouldn't have to continually hold the
> action key down while on the ladder. The initial "grab" would just be to
> "latch" onto the ladder. Once "latched", the player character would stay
> "stuck" to it until pressing the action key again ("ungrab") and/or jumping
> off, like you suggested.
> >
>
> It was more the idea of having to sit about watching the grab action
> positioning the player on the ladder I was bothered about.
I never said it had to take a "long" time to grab the ladder and position the player. Surely it can be done in, oh, half a second, eh?
> > Oh and interface consistency is relative.
>
> It's consistency within the game's own interface. Here I'm assuming that
> FPSes all have as a minimum the mouselook+two axes of directional movement
> system (probably with jump and crouch as well).
And a bunch of other keys, including the action key. So what? This shouldn't be that much of a problem for increased player control.
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3893864C...@tnlc.com...
> > Javier Arevalo wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:12:44 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> > > <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> But none of this realism would make Tomb Raider a better game.
> > > >
> > > >How do YOU know? I think they would. While it may lose some
> > > >mindless action fans, I think hyperrealism would attract other
> > > >fans.
> > >
> > > I hate to ask, but how many succesful commercial games have you
> > > designed? I don't mean to say you're not entitled to have an opinion,
> > > but I think your opinion is based on your personal taste, not on
> > > real-life experience.
> >
> > If Maxis (who the person I responded to supposedly worked for) did some
> kind of marketing survey to see how gamers would react to "hyper-realism" in
> games, I would perhaps be able to accept what he (Maxis) says with respect
> to this more seriously. However, I doubt such surveys have been done.
> >
>
> OK, go find a nice wide number of NGs and do a straw-poll. Ask players if
> they want to have to watch their character take a dump every couple of
> hours. Or have to role-play months in hospital in real-time. Or have a few
> hours with a black screen as they sleep. Given what I know of people, I
> imagine that there wouldn't be too many of them, and that USENET would
> probably be turning up more than the true average as well.
No need to blow the reality bit out of proportion, but if a game is attempting to be realistic in many aspects like weather, character interaction, physics, weapons, damage, etc, etc, etc, it might as well throw in more character realism--at the very least having to eat (Garret can do it in Thief), rest/sleep (which can be sped up if necessary--single-player would be easier for this), and, yes, relieve oneself (Duke Nukem could do it!).
> > > >Good is relative. What's "better gameplay" to one designer may not
> > > >be to another designer. It's all relative.
> > >
> > > Try to explain that when your hyper-realistic game has been widely
> > > ignored or rejected by the market: "rejected? well, that's relative".
> > > :)
> >
> > I just don't see that to be the case, however. 3D games continue to get
> more and more realistic and yet they are still popular. Why do you think
> Quake and Unreal are so popular? Because they look VERY visually realistic.
>
> IME the main reason Unreal Tournament is popular is the gameplay. It looks
> damn pretty too, but so do a few other games. And while they're visually
> realistic (actually, I don't think they really are that much, different
> argument though), that's where the realism ends. I don't recall ever seeing
> a bot relieving itself on the spot as a volley of rockets flies over it's
> head. Or being able to steer myself in mid-air. In fact, UT is in places
> less realistic than Unreal. A better comparison might be Trespasser (widely
> regarded as crap), or the more realistic flight sims which tend to sell to a
> fairly small market.
Trespasser was just ahead of its time. Most people didn't have the machines to appreciate its technological achievement. I won't get into why I like Trespasser--search deja.com for my posts about it. Flight and other sims are basically the precursors to today's 3D games, which are growing ever more increasingly "simulistic" (simulation-realistic).
Oh and why would a bot (non-biological entity) need to relieve itself? I haven't even bothered to try UT or Q3 yet.
Brian Upton
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>If Maxis (who the person I responded to supposedly worked for) did
>some kind of marketing survey to see how gamers would react to "h
>yper-realism" in games, I would perhaps be able to accept what he (
>Maxis) says with respect to this more seriously. However, I doubt suc
>h surveys have been done.
I assume you're talking about Jason Shankel? Yes, he does indeed work
for Maxis.
It seems odd that you would be leveling your gun at Will Wright and
Co. They've had some of the biggest hits in the business and have
consistently broken new ground with original and innovative titles.
If anybody has a line on what gamers want it's them.
The survey you describe would be pointless. Ask most gamers if they
want their games to be more realistic and they'll say "Yeah, sure!"
Ask them if they want more complicated interfaces and they'll say
"No." Ask them if they want fuzzier connections between cause and
effect and they'll say "No." Ask them if they want long stretches of
time when nothing interesting happens and they'll say "No." Yet all
of these effects fall out of "hyper-realistic" games. You need a
complicated interface to compensate for the limited inputs (two hands
vs. an entire body) and limited outputs (no sense of touch, no sense
of balance). You get fuzzy relationships between cause and effect and
long boring stretches because that's how real life works. There's no
way to design around these problems.
>
>> >Good is relative. What's "better gameplay" to one designer may not
>> >be to another designer. It's all relative.
>>
>> Try to explain that when your hyper-realistic game has been widely
>> ignored or rejected by the market: "rejected? well, that's relative".
>> :)
>
>I just don't see that to be the case, however. 3D games continue to
> get more and more realistic and yet they are still popular. Why do y
>ou think Quake and Unreal are so popular? Because they look VE
>RY visually realistic. I've heard the whole POINT of Quake 3 is to
>show off the realistic 3D engine, not the gameplay. YOU do the m
>ath...
No, Quake and Unreal are popular because they're fun to play. Their
graphics *are* getting more realistic, but their gameplay is as
cartoonish as ever. (No slam intended -- they're very good cartoons).
A whole lot of people prefer that style of shooter.
With Rainbow Six we tried to make it feel as realistic as possible
without sacrificing fun and ease of use. So there are a whole lot of
places where we compromise reality to help the player out. The
characters run about 50% faster than people do in the real world.
They don't get out of breath because tracking fatigue would have added
a lot of complexity to the interface. (In the real world you *feel*
yourself breathing hard -- you don't look at a little bar somewhere in
your visual field.) We give the player a map that shows his team and
the terrorists because such information usually comes in the form of
radio reports that are too complicated to generate on the fly. ("This
is Blue Team. We're coming up the back stairs and we've got a group
of tangos in the hallway escorting a lone hostage.")
Here, tell me how we should have handled this one more realistically:
Real HRT operatives use touch signal to show that they're in position.
You get four guys lining up in front of the door to a room they're
going to clear and they pass a tap from back to front to indicate
everyone is ready to go. How do you handle touch?
--
"Pithecanthropus! Iconoclast! Bashi-bazouk!"
Brian Upton brian...@redstorm.com
** Opinions expressed are my own and not those of Red Storm **
Larry
>Oh and why would a bot (non-biological entity) need to relieve itself? I
haven't even bothered to try UT or Q3 yet.
Bot here is an artificially-intelligent computer opponent, designed to play
like a good human opponent. If we were discussing games which were supposed
to simulate actual human behaviour the lack of bot defecation would be
applicable, but since in Q3A and UT there is no facility for eating or
drinking (only death-dealing and destruction, yay!) no faeces manufacturing
should be needed ;o)
If it were a game more like, say, Ultima Online, Everquest, or whatever,
where people are playing more life-like (note I didn't say realistic, I take
a different view of all this stuff) people, then any artificial
player-characters, which would be the bots in this situation as opposed to
simply non-player characters, would need to be limited by the same
constraints of hunger and fatigue (as well as any other factors like
field-of-view, item availability, locational awareness, etc) as the human
players.
However, the issue here is far simpler - you should only simulate in a game
those parts which are important to the game. Q3A being a fast-paced action
game, you don't want to stop to take a toilet break every few frags, whereas
something like UO could force this upon you as a consideration of when to
eat/drink, planning adequate rest stops during a journey, and even possibly
public decency - after all, you can't just whip off your chainmail trousers
and squat in the village square without some sort of repercussion, can
you??? :o)
--
Larry
--
Eep²
Not with that kind of attitude there isn't. But just as other senses are compensated in games, so to will still other senses eventually be designed into games. It's all a matter of how innovative, creative, and intuitive game developers want to be.
> >> >Good is relative. What's "better gameplay" to one designer may not
> >> >be to another designer. It's all relative.
> >>
> >> Try to explain that when your hyper-realistic game has been widely
> >> ignored or rejected by the market: "rejected? well, that's relative".
> >> :)
> >
> >I just don't see that to be the case, however. 3D games continue to
> > get more and more realistic and yet they are still popular. Why do y
> >ou think Quake and Unreal are so popular? Because they look VE
> >RY visually realistic. I've heard the whole POINT of Quake 3 is to
> >show off the realistic 3D engine, not the gameplay. YOU do the m
> >ath...
>
> No, Quake and Unreal are popular because they're fun to play. Their
> graphics *are* getting more realistic, but their gameplay is as
> cartoonish as ever. (No slam intended -- they're very good cartoons).
> A whole lot of people prefer that style of shooter.
Yea, well, most people are idiots but that doesn't mean game developers have to create games just for idiots. :)
> With Rainbow Six we tried to make it feel as realistic as possible
> without sacrificing fun and ease of use. So there are a whole lot of
> places where we compromise reality to help the player out. The
> characters run about 50% faster than people do in the real world.
> They don't get out of breath because tracking fatigue would have added
> a lot of complexity to the interface. (In the real world you *feel*
> yourself breathing hard -- you don't look at a little bar somewhere in
> your visual field.) We give the player a map that shows his team and
> the terrorists because such information usually comes in the form of
> radio reports that are too complicated to generate on the fly. ("This
> is Blue Team. We're coming up the back stairs and we've got a group
> of tangos in the hallway escorting a lone hostage.")
>
> Here, tell me how we should have handled this one more realistically:
> Real HRT operatives use touch signal to show that they're in position.
> You get four guys lining up in front of the door to a room they're
> going to clear and they pass a tap from back to front to indicate
> everyone is ready to go. How do you handle touch?
How about a touch graphic indicator similar to how Half-Life's hazard suit worked when it detected heat/radiation? Depending on where the player is touched (in this case front or back), a visual indicator would appear at the appropriate screen edge. It might also help to actually SEE the hand (again, in this case) touch the player.
As games get more and more "bodily realistic", new input peripherals (like the ones developed for virtual reality, which is basically where 3D games stem from, such as gloves, body suits, other tactile sensor apparel, etc) will have to be developed and sold commercially. Some developer/publisher has to take the leap eventually--the sooner the better. Once gamers see how cool a tactile game would be, a market will be created for such VR suits and game design innovation will have taken the next step. The end result is either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a direct neural interface where there is no need for a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or speakers...or VR suits.
SpammersDie
>No need to blow the reality bit out of proportion, but
>if a game is attempting to be realistic in many aspects
>like weather, character interaction, physics, weapons,
>damage, etc, etc, etc, it might as well throw in more
>character realism--at the very least having to eat (Garret
>can do it in Thief), rest/sleep (which can be sped up if
>necessary--single-player would be easier for this), and, yes,
>relieve oneself (Duke Nukem could do it!)
There's a qualitative difference between "can doing" and "having to do",
which you gloss over.
Neither Thief nor Duke require you to do these things. For Duke, the toilet
shit is just part of the game's cheese factor. And the eating action in
Thief is pretty pointless - I don't know why they bothered to implement it
when it has no effect. They're not there to increase realism.
> less realistic than Unreal. A better comparison might be Trespasser
(widely
>> regarded as crap), or the more realistic flight sims which tend to sell
to a
>> fairly small market.
>
>Trespasser was just ahead of its time. Most people didn't
>have the machines to appreciate its technological achievement.
From everything I've heard (I'd never waste my time playing it),
Trespasser's problem isn't just a sluggish framerate (which could be fixed),
it's a poorly designed interface. The arm interface which requires way too
much mental effort to perform a simple manuever than in real life, we do
instinctively. To pick up or drop an object in real life, we don't
consciously micromanage our arm's trajectory, yaw and roll; we give the
mental command "pick up that object", and it just happens.
One of the most of frustrating things any game can do is to force the player
to labor over and over again over an action that would be inconsequential in
real life. Stacking up boxes should not be a five minute exercise.
Trespasser's a perfect example of TOO much detail DEGRADING realism, and
adding a lot of unnecessary frustration in the bargain.
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3893FAF4...@tnlc.com...
>
> I never said it had to take a "long" time to grab the ladder and position
the player. Surely it can be done in, oh, half a second, eh?
>
If the controls don't respond within that time it's long enough to put a
hole in consistency. If they do then the animation's entirely for those
watching the guy climbing the ladder - nothing wrong with that, Unreal
Tournament has some nice animations (although it needs a few more IMO).
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:38942725...@tnlc.com...
> Brian Upton wrote:
>
> > The survey you describe would be pointless. Ask most gamers if they
> > want their games to be more realistic and they'll say "Yeah, sure!"
> > Ask them if they want more complicated interfaces and they'll say
> > "No." Ask them if they want fuzzier connections between cause and
> > effect and they'll say "No." Ask them if they want long stretches of
> > time when nothing interesting happens and they'll say "No." Yet all
> > of these effects fall out of "hyper-realistic" games. You need a
> > complicated interface to compensate for the limited inputs (two hands
> > vs. an entire body) and limited outputs (no sense of touch, no sense
> > of balance). You get fuzzy relationships between cause and effect and
> > long boring stretches because that's how real life works. There's no
> > way to design around these problems.
>
> Not with that kind of attitude there isn't. But just as other senses are
compensated in games, so to will still other senses eventually be designed
into games. It's all a matter of how innovative, creative, and intuitive
game developers want to be.
>
The usual route is to simplify. When you climb up a ladder in an FPS, it's
usually possible to eg shoot someone above you while climbing up at full
speed. I could probably manage it for going downwards, although probably
with some friction burns, I sure as hell couldn't do it going up because I'd
need both hands for climbing! But if you do the same thing in a game, the
interface starts to feel unresponsive. It's like you no longer have full
control over your virtual body. That's also the main reason most people
didn't like Trespasser.
> > No, Quake and Unreal are popular because they're fun to play. Their
> > graphics *are* getting more realistic, but their gameplay is as
> > cartoonish as ever. (No slam intended -- they're very good cartoons).
> > A whole lot of people prefer that style of shooter.
>
> Yea, well, most people are idiots but that doesn't mean game developers
have to create games just for idiots. :)
>
I think you'll find they don't. In my experience most of the people who are
genuinely *good* at the likes of Quake and UT are pretty smart people.
There's more to running and gunning than just shooting and dodging, believe
me.
> > Here, tell me how we should have handled this one more realistically:
> > Real HRT operatives use touch signal to show that they're in position.
> > You get four guys lining up in front of the door to a room they're
> > going to clear and they pass a tap from back to front to indicate
> > everyone is ready to go. How do you handle touch?
>
> How about a touch graphic indicator similar to how Half-Life's hazard suit
worked when it detected heat/radiation? Depending on where the player is
touched (in this case front or back), a visual indicator would appear at the
appropriate screen edge. It might also help to actually SEE the hand (again,
in this case) touch the player.
>
The player wouldn't see the hand, it's a tap on the back. The visual
indicator would be as good a method as any other, possibly an improvement
over speech samples but that depends how the game's set up. Likewise a 'tap'
key would be needed for signalling other team members. I'm not sure it would
have added a lot to R6 though, it may have detracted from it by being more
realistic than the rest of the game.
> As games get more and more "bodily realistic", new input peripherals (like
the ones developed for virtual reality, which is basically where 3D games
stem from, such as gloves, body suits, other tactile sensor apparel, etc)
will have to be developed and sold commercially. Some developer/publisher
has to take the leap eventually--the sooner the better. Once gamers see how
cool a tactile game would be, a market will be created for such VR suits and
game design innovation will have taken the next step. The end result is
either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a direct neural interface where there
is no need for a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or speakers...or VR suits.
>
And then the whole damn thing falls apart because realism then requires
players to do things they aren't actually physically capable of, or else to
spend hour upon hour training. Welcome to the wonderful world of game
design.
Brian Upton
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Brian Upton wrote:
>
>...
>
>> Here, tell me how we should have handled this one more realistically:
>> Real HRT operatives use touch signal to show that they're in position.
>> You get four guys lining up in front of the door to a room they're
>> going to clear and they pass a tap from back to front to indicate
>> everyone is ready to go. How do you handle touch?
>
>How about a touch graphic indicator similar to how Half-Life's hazard suit
> worked when it detected heat/radiation? Depending on where the playe
>r is touched (in this case front or back), a visual indicator would appear at
> the appropriate screen edge. It might also help to actually SEE the hand
>(again, in this case) touch the player.
Sure, if you want to make touch a big part of the game you can include
a visual representation of it. You can also include visual cues for
hunger, fatigue, smell, taste ... whatever. And you'll wind up with
an interface that's so complicated and cluttered that you'd have to
have fighter pilot training to run it. So much for creating a sense
of immersion ... .
An important part of game design is deciding what parts of reality you
can ignore. Particularly in an action game the player only has a
limited amount of bandwidth to focus on the different types of
information that are presented to him. Giving him too much is as bad
as giving him too little.
>As games get more and more "bodily realistic", new input peripherals (like
>the ones developed for virtual reality, which is basically where 3D games
>stem from, such as gloves, body suits, other tactile sensor apparel, etc) wi
>ll have to be developed and sold commercially.
Uh-huh. Right.
You've been watching way too much science fiction. I did graduate
work in "virtual reality" at the University of North Carolina in the
mid-90's. The hardware you're fantasizing about doesn't exist even in
the laboratory. Gloves and body suits have horrible problems
recording accurate body positions. Every current headmount causes
serious motion sickness in a significant fraction of users. The only
really good force feedback system I've seen works on one fingertip
only. People are working long hours on developing new technology, but
there are enough roadblocks visible on the road ahead that there's a
strong possibility that the "virtual reality" you see on Star Trek
will _never_ exist. Ever, ever, ever. Just like there's a strong
possibility that we will never invent a time machine or travel faster
than the speed of light.
> Some developer/publisher
> has to take the leap eventually--the sooner the better. Once gamers see h
>ow cool a tactile game would be, a market will be created for such VR suit
>s and game design innovation will have taken the next step. The end resul
>t is either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a direct neural interface where ther
>e is no need for a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or speakers...or VR suits.
1. VR Suits don't exist -- anywhere. Not like you think they exist.
There are serious technical reasons why VR suits may never exist.
2. The holodeck isn't science fiction. It's a fairy tale. There's
no reasonable extrapolation of current tech that suggests anything
like it is remotely possible.
3. Scientists *have* managed to get a blind man to "see" a grid of
dots by directly stimulating his visual cortex. But I suspect if I
knew as much about neuroscience as I do about "virtual reality" I
would being saying the same thing about neural implants as I said
above VR suits, i.e. there's a fair chance the tech will never pan
out.
Eep²
> >No need to blow the reality bit out of proportion, but
> >if a game is attempting to be realistic in many aspects
> >like weather, character interaction, physics, weapons,
> >damage, etc, etc, etc, it might as well throw in more
> >character realism--at the very least having to eat (Garret
> >can do it in Thief), rest/sleep (which can be sped up if
> >necessary--single-player would be easier for this), and, yes,
> >relieve oneself (Duke Nukem could do it!)
>
> There's a qualitative difference between "can doing" and "having to do",
> which you gloss over.
>
> Neither Thief nor Duke require you to do these things. For Duke, the toilet
> shit is just part of the game's cheese factor. And the eating action in
> Thief is pretty pointless - I don't know why they bothered to implement it
> when it has no effect. They're not there to increase realism.
They aren't? It's more realistic if Duke is ABLE to pee (not shit--although that would just be yet another realistic element) and Garrett is ABLE to eat because it fits within the game's environment. Just as crates and barrels and other "accessories" help make up Thief's "scenery", so to do Garrett's actions. They ALL contribute to realism in some relative way.
> > less realistic than Unreal. A better comparison might be Trespasser (widely
> >> regarded as crap), or the more realistic flight sims which tend to sell to a
> >> fairly small market.
> >
> >Trespasser was just ahead of its time. Most people didn't
> >have the machines to appreciate its technological achievement.
>
> From everything I've heard (I'd never waste my time playing it),
> Trespasser's problem isn't just a sluggish framerate (which could be fixed),
> it's a poorly designed interface. The arm interface which requires way too
> much mental effort to perform a simple manuever than in real life, we do
> instinctively. To pick up or drop an object in real life, we don't
> consciously micromanage our arm's trajectory, yaw and roll; we give the
> mental command "pick up that object", and it just happens.
>
> One of the most of frustrating things any game can do is to force the player
> to labor over and over again over an action that would be inconsequential in
> real life. Stacking up boxes should not be a five minute exercise.
>
> Trespasser's a perfect example of TOO much detail DEGRADING realism, and
> adding a lot of unnecessary frustration in the bargain.
Well, Trespasser was an experiment that could've been done many different ways, but at least Dreamworks TRIED something new (I still feel Trespasser's physics modelling far surpassed its clunky arm control), unlike most game developers who simply rehash what's already been done and perhaps only add very few MINOR new things. Looking Glass is another game developer I feel is "breaking the mold" of rehashed games. The gaming industry needs more developers who aren't afraid to try new things...and perhaps even fail. "If you're not failing, you're not succeeding", I once read. Dreamworks may have "failed" with Trespasser, but they still have many other games that are popular and selling fine.
Eep²
Training is nothing new to games. A lot of games have training areas before the player actually begins the game. Tomb Raider uses Lara's mansion and Cambodia (in TR4), Half-Life has the training levels where Gordon learns about his hazard suit (this is probably a good example of how VR suit training would be possible), Thief has a training level where Garrett gets used to walking in shadows, making as little noise as possible, and the traditional bow-shooting and swordplay.
Nothing has to fall apart if designed well. :)
Eep²
Ah but that's the tricky part, isn't it? Who decides what's "too much" and what's "not too much"? It's all relative. What YOU think is too much may be too little to someone else.
> >As games get more and more "bodily realistic", new input peripherals (like
> >the ones developed for virtual reality, which is basically where 3D games
> >stem from, such as gloves, body suits, other tactile sensor apparel, etc) wi
> >ll have to be developed and sold commercially.
>
> Uh-huh. Right.
>
> You've been watching way too much science fiction. I did graduate
> work in "virtual reality" at the University of North Carolina in the
> mid-90's. The hardware you're fantasizing about doesn't exist even in
> the laboratory. Gloves and body suits have horrible problems
> recording accurate body positions. Every current headmount causes
> serious motion sickness in a significant fraction of users. The only
> really good force feedback system I've seen works on one fingertip
> only. People are working long hours on developing new technology, but
> there are enough roadblocks visible on the road ahead that there's a
> strong possibility that the "virtual reality" you see on Star Trek
> will _never_ exist. Ever, ever, ever. Just like there's a strong
> possibility that we will never invent a time machine or travel faster
> than the speed of light.
Such pessimistic attitudes you have towards creativity. Tsk tsk...
> > Some developer/publisher
> > has to take the leap eventually--the sooner the better. Once gamers see h
> >ow cool a tactile game would be, a market will be created for such VR suit
> >s and game design innovation will have taken the next step. The end resul
> >t is either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a direct neural interface where ther
> >e is no need for a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or speakers...or VR suits.
>
> 1. VR Suits don't exist -- anywhere. Not like you think they exist.
> There are serious technical reasons why VR suits may never exist.
Such as? And do try to lay off the pessimism.
> 2. The holodeck isn't science fiction. It's a fairy tale. There's
> no reasonable extrapolation of current tech that suggests anything
> like it is remotely possible.
Um, ever heard of holograms? And I hate to tell you this but 3D VR is remotely similar to a holodeck. Learn to think relatively and perhaps you'll see just how much things actually relate to each other.
> 3. Scientists *have* managed to get a blind man to "see" a grid of
> dots by directly stimulating his visual cortex. But I suspect if I
> knew as much about neuroscience as I do about "virtual reality" I
> would being saying the same thing about neural implants as I said
> above VR suits, i.e. there's a fair chance the tech will never pan
> out.
More pessimism. You're obviously not an artist, are you? I'm sure people said humans'd never fly, but just look at us zipping around in jets, helicopters, etc today. Don't think so restrictively, eh?
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3894BAB9...@tnlc.com...
before the player actually begins the game. Tomb Raider uses Lara's mansion
and Cambodia (in TR4), Half-Life has the training levels where Gordon learns
about his hazard suit (this is probably a good example of how VR suit
training would be possible), Thief has a training level where Garrett gets
used to walking in shadows, making as little noise as possible, and the
traditional bow-shooting and swordplay.
>
There's a difference between "here's the controls, here's a basic technique"
and having to repeatedly practise something until it becomes second nature.
The resulting difference is the one between learning to play a racing game
and learning to drive a car. Funnily enough, the only training missions I've
seen take any amount of time to complete have been for strategy games.
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3894BAB9...@tnlc.com...
> > Training is nothing new to games. A lot of games have training areas
> before the player actually begins the game. Tomb Raider uses Lara's mansion
> and Cambodia (in TR4), Half-Life has the training levels where Gordon learns
> about his hazard suit (this is probably a good example of how VR suit
> training would be possible), Thief has a training level where Garrett gets
> used to walking in shadows, making as little noise as possible, and the
> traditional bow-shooting and swordplay.
> >
>
> There's a difference between "here's the controls, here's a basic technique"
> and having to repeatedly practise something until it becomes second nature.
> The resulting difference is the one between learning to play a racing game
> and learning to drive a car. Funnily enough, the only training missions I've
> seen take any amount of time to complete have been for strategy games.
Need I state it? Training is relative. Some people pick up training faster than others. <shrug>
SpammersDie
To some extent, I agree, although I do have a problem with developers that
pass their failures onto paying customers. People who walk into a software
store and buy a game off the shelf have the right to expect that the
obviously failed experiments have been filtered out.
In any case, it seems you've accepted that Trespasser's failings aren't
simply a matter of the customer having an inadequate machine.
>
SpammersDie
(like
>> the ones developed for virtual reality, which is basically where 3D games
>> stem from, such as gloves, body suits, other tactile sensor apparel, etc)
>> will have to be developed and sold commercially. Some developer/publisher
>> has to take the leap eventually--the sooner the better. Once gamers see
how
>> cool a tactile game would be, a market will be created for such VR suits
and
>> game design innovation will have taken the next step. The end result is
>> either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a direct neural interface where
there
>> is no need for a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or speakers...or VR suits.
>> >
>>
>> And then the whole damn thing falls apart because realism then requires
>> players to do things they aren't actually physically capable of, or else
to
>> spend hour upon hour training. Welcome to the wonderful world of game
>> design.
>
>before the player actually begins the game. Tomb Raider uses Lara's
>mansion and Cambodia (in TR4), Half-Life has the training levels where
>Gordon learns about his hazard suit (this is probably a good example of
>how VR suit training would be possible), Thief has a training level where
>Garrett gets used to walking in shadows, making as little noise as
>possible, and the traditional bow-shooting and swordplay.
You are confusing physical training with teaching the player how to control
a character.
If you require the player to PHYSICALLY execute his characters moves, it's
no longer a computer game - it's a sport. And if you're not already
physically fit for long hours of sporting, it's going to take more than few
minutes of Black Mesa virtual training courses to make you physically fit.
How many players would buy a computer game that requires them to undergo
weeks or months of physical training regiment just to be an expert player at
it? (Of course, we might be healthier people because of it but that's
neither here nor there. Those who wish to engage in physical sports or
workouts have plenty of options to do that now. There's still a legitimate
place for non-physical entertainment, and computer games fill that niche.)
For the most part, HL and Thief's "training" exercises simply teach you how
to tell the character simple things that you already know how to do in real
life. It's basically an online interactive manual and it only takes a few
minutes to go through. Despite being wrapped up in a "training course" plot,
it's purpose is to teach the player how to manipulate the character, not to
train the character. How many nuclear physicists do you know that undergo
jumpng, ladder climbing and crate pushing exercises as part of their new
employee orientation? How many aspiring teenage thieves require explicit
instructions in opening doors, picking up and carrying apples, and using
keys? Sure, they include some skill-related things like target practice but
they're still rudimentary and geared towards teaching you the controls -
gamers still expect to master the skills "on-the-job."
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3894BC13...@tnlc.com...
> Brian Upton wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 03:57:25 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> > <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> > > How about a touch graphic indicator similar to how Half-Life's hazard
suit > > > worked when it detected heat/radiation? Depending on where the
would appear at > > > the appropriate screen edge. It might also help to
actually SEE the hand
> > > (again, in this case) touch the player.
> >
> > can ignore. Particularly in an action game the player only has a
> > limited amount of bandwidth to focus on the different types of
> > information that are presented to him. Giving him too much is as bad
> > as giving him too little.
>
> Ah but that's the tricky part, isn't it? Who decides what's "too much" and
what's "not too much"? It's all relative. What YOU think is too much may be
too little to someone else.
>
Which is where sales counts come in. Brian and Redstorm have proven
themselves. So have Epic and Id. I've never seen so much as a design doc out
of you.
> > >As games get more and more "bodily realistic", new input peripherals
(like
> > >the ones developed for virtual reality, which is basically where 3D
games
> > >stem from, such as gloves, body suits, other tactile sensor apparel,
etc) wi
> > >ll have to be developed and sold commercially.
> >
> > Uh-huh. Right.
> >
> > You've been watching way too much science fiction. I did graduate
> > work in "virtual reality" at the University of North Carolina in the
> > mid-90's. The hardware you're fantasizing about doesn't exist even in
> > the laboratory. Gloves and body suits have horrible problems
> > recording accurate body positions. Every current headmount causes
> > serious motion sickness in a significant fraction of users. The only
> > really good force feedback system I've seen works on one fingertip
> > only. People are working long hours on developing new technology, but
> > there are enough roadblocks visible on the road ahead that there's a
> > strong possibility that the "virtual reality" you see on Star Trek
> > will _never_ exist. Ever, ever, ever. Just like there's a strong
> > possibility that we will never invent a time machine or travel faster
> > than the speed of light.
>
> Such pessimistic attitudes you have towards creativity. Tsk tsk...
>
Why shouldn't he have? Brian's been there and done it. You've done a little
artwork, but last time I looked you weren't too great at developing new
technology...
> > > Some developer/publisher
> > > has to take the leap eventually--the sooner the better. Once gamers
see h
> > >ow cool a tactile game would be, a market will be created for such VR
suit
> > >s and game design innovation will have taken the next step. The end
resul
> > >t is either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a direct neural interface
where ther
> > >e is no need for a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or speakers...or VR suits.
> >
> > 1. VR Suits don't exist -- anywhere. Not like you think they exist.
> > There are serious technical reasons why VR suits may never exist.
>
> Such as? And do try to lay off the pessimism.
>
> > 2. The holodeck isn't science fiction. It's a fairy tale. There's
> > no reasonable extrapolation of current tech that suggests anything
> > like it is remotely possible.
>
> Um, ever heard of holograms?
Ever been inside one? And may I ask just what happens when the player dies?
Or how you plan to make it possible to touch things?
>
> > 3. Scientists *have* managed to get a blind man to "see" a grid of
> > dots by directly stimulating his visual cortex. But I suspect if I
> > knew as much about neuroscience as I do about "virtual reality" I
> > would being saying the same thing about neural implants as I said
> > above VR suits, i.e. there's a fair chance the tech will never pan
> > out.
>
> More pessimism. You're obviously not an artist, are you? I'm sure people
said humans'd never fly, but just look at us zipping around in jets,
helicopters, etc today. Don't think so restrictively, eh?
>
The difference is, most of them weren't aware of the slightest possibility.
We're aware of what may be possible today, but we're not sure it will. The
brain is a damn complex piece of equipment and it's believed that there are
physical limits on how much computing power we can throw together. There's
one limit for you.
And I can tell you now that a full simulation of reality (or any area of it
bigger than the computer running the simulation) would be impossible. A
computer capable of that would be able to simulate it's own processing
faster than it actually runs, which isn't possible.
Noah Falstein
Eep² wrote:
> Well, Trespasser was an experiment that could've been done many different ways, but at least Dreamworks TRIED something new (I still feel Trespasser's physics modelling far surpassed its clunky arm control), unlike most game developers who simply rehash what's already been done and perhaps only add very few MINOR new things. Looking Glass is another game developer I feel is "breaking the mold" of rehashed games. The gaming industry needs more developers who aren't afraid to try new things...and perhaps even fail. "If you're not failing, you're not succeeding", I once read. Dreamworks may have "failed" with Trespasser, but they still have many other games that are popular and selling fine.
Many? No. A few that have done well, but there could have been many more if the money and effort devoted to Trespasser was better invested. Most of the people who developed Trespasser left the company, many before the game was finished, burnt out and bitter. The game lost millions of dollars. It was not a good thing for the company in any way. Perhaps it was good for the industry by providing another example of expensive hubris, but I think we have plenty of those. If anything it will discourage others from trying to experiment with more realistic physics in the fear that it was one of the factors contributing to its failure.
--
Noah Falstein
The Inspiracy
Freelance Interactive Design
http://www.theinspiracy.com
n...@theinspiracy.NOSPAM.com
To reply remove the obvious
Erik Max Francis
> Need I state it? Training is relative.
Go away, troll.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 962.442 Ms pL | 348 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__
/ \ It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly.
\__/ Anatole France
Eep²
> >> > As games get more and more "bodily realistic", new input peripherals (like
> >> the ones developed for virtual reality, which is basically where 3D games
> >> stem from, such as gloves, body suits, other tactile sensor apparel, etc)
> >> will have to be developed and sold commercially. Some developer/publisher
> >> has to take the leap eventually--the sooner the better. Once gamers see how
> >> cool a tactile game would be, a market will be created for such VR suits and
> >> game design innovation will have taken the next step. The end result is
> >> either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a direct neural interface where there
> >> is no need for a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or speakers...or VR suits.
> >>
> >> And then the whole damn thing falls apart because realism then requires
> >> players to do things they aren't actually physically capable of, or else to
> >> spend hour upon hour training. Welcome to the wonderful world of game
> >> design.
> >
Now YOU'RE doing it. There's no need to take the concept of training to such an absolute degree. I never mentioned physically training for a game, but, for example, a VR suit would ALLOW physically controlling the player character but it would not be REQUIRED to do so. Mostly the suit would probably be there for tactile feedback and seated player control. For example, forward, backward, rotational, and left-right movement could still be handled by a keyboard, mouse, control pad, joystick, etc, while leaning, picking up and dropping objects, etc could be done by the suit. Much variety and versatility could be designed in such an input device.
Game training does INDEED train the character--by training the player's control of it. Since the player is basically BECOMING the character (role-playing), the player needs to learn how to CONTROL the character, and this is accomplished by training the player-character. It's all relative.
I could also argue that gaming is a sport. It still takes hand-eye coordination, not to mention key pressing (sometimes pounding), timing, agility, reflexes, etc, etc, etc. There are sports games, too, and high-frame-rate FPS deathmatches seem fairly intensive at times.
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3894BC13...@tnlc.com...
> > Brian Upton wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 03:57:25 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> > > <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> > > > How about a touch graphic indicator similar to how Half-Life's hazard
> suit > > > worked when it detected heat/radiation? Depending on where the
> player > > > is touched (in this case front or back), a visual indicator
> would appear at > > > the appropriate screen edge. It might also help to
> actually SEE the hand
> > > > (again, in this case) touch the player.
> > >
> > > An important part of game design is deciding what parts of reality you
> > > can ignore. Particularly in an action game the player only has a
> > > limited amount of bandwidth to focus on the different types of
> > > information that are presented to him. Giving him too much is as bad
> > > as giving him too little.
> >
> > Ah but that's the tricky part, isn't it? Who decides what's "too much" and
> what's "not too much"? It's all relative. What YOU think is too much may be
> too little to someone else.
> >
>
> Which is where sales counts come in. Brian and Redstorm have proven
> themselves. So have Epic and Id. I've never seen so much as a design doc out
> of you.
Think of my posts about game design in these newsgroups as my "design doc", if you want.
> > > >As games get more and more "bodily realistic", new input peripherals (like
> > > >the ones developed for virtual reality, which is basically where 3D games
> > > >stem from, such as gloves, body suits, other tactile sensor apparel, etc) wi
> > > >ll have to be developed and sold commercially.
> > >
> > > Uh-huh. Right.
> > >
> > > You've been watching way too much science fiction. I did graduate
> > > work in "virtual reality" at the University of North Carolina in the
> > > mid-90's. The hardware you're fantasizing about doesn't exist even in
> > > the laboratory. Gloves and body suits have horrible problems
> > > recording accurate body positions. Every current headmount causes
> > > serious motion sickness in a significant fraction of users. The only
> > > really good force feedback system I've seen works on one fingertip
> > > only. People are working long hours on developing new technology, but
> > > there are enough roadblocks visible on the road ahead that there's a
> > > strong possibility that the "virtual reality" you see on Star Trek
> > > will _never_ exist. Ever, ever, ever. Just like there's a strong
> > > possibility that we will never invent a time machine or travel faster
> > > than the speed of light.
> >
> > Such pessimistic attitudes you have towards creativity. Tsk tsk...
>
> Why shouldn't he have? Brian's been there and done it. You've done a little
> artwork, but last time I looked you weren't too great at developing new
> technology...
I develop ideas, not tech. Of course I'm not TRYING to develop new tech but am simply discussing game design (and other) issues. Try to keep that in mind.
> > > > Some developer/publisher
> > > > has to take the leap eventually--the sooner the better. Once gamers see h
> > > >ow cool a tactile game would be, a market will be created for such VR suit
> > > >s and game design innovation will have taken the next step. The end resul
> > > >t is either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a direct neural interface where ther
> > > >e is no need for a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or speakers...or VR suits.
> > >
> > > 1. VR Suits don't exist -- anywhere. Not like you think they exist.
> > > There are serious technical reasons why VR suits may never exist.
> >
> > Such as? And do try to lay off the pessimism.
> >
> > > 2. The holodeck isn't science fiction. It's a fairy tale. There's
> > > no reasonable extrapolation of current tech that suggests anything
> > > like it is remotely possible.
> >
> > Um, ever heard of holograms?
>
> Ever been inside one? And may I ask just what happens when the player dies?
> Or how you plan to make it possible to touch things?
The key point you're missing is that holograms are remotely like holodecks. Think relatively. Holodecks are based off holographic projection and force-feedback shields. While the latter doesn't exist (that I know of) at this time, the former does. Hence, holograms are relatively LIKE holodecks.
> > > 3. Scientists *have* managed to get a blind man to "see" a grid of
> > > dots by directly stimulating his visual cortex. But I suspect if I
> > > knew as much about neuroscience as I do about "virtual reality" I
> > > would being saying the same thing about neural implants as I said
> > > above VR suits, i.e. there's a fair chance the tech will never pan
> > > out.
> >
> > More pessimism. You're obviously not an artist, are you? I'm sure people
> said humans'd never fly, but just look at us zipping around in jets,
> helicopters, etc today. Don't think so restrictively, eh?
> >
>
> The difference is, most of them weren't aware of the slightest possibility.
> We're aware of what may be possible today, but we're not sure it will. The
> brain is a damn complex piece of equipment and it's believed that there are
> physical limits on how much computing power we can throw together. There's
> one limit for you.
Limits are relative. What's limiting to you may not be to me (which is becoming more and more obvious the more I communicate with you). Keep your limits to yourself. :)
> And I can tell you now that a full simulation of reality (or any area of it
> bigger than the computer running the simulation) would be impossible. A
> computer capable of that would be able to simulate it's own processing
> faster than it actually runs, which isn't possible.
Ever heard the expression "more than the sum of its parts"? I think that may apply here. You do the math...
Careful...you're getting closer to me filtering you again. :) I can only take so much of your pessimism...
Eep²
Then that is a shame because it wasn't Trespasser's physics modelling that did it in, but that most people didn't have the machines (and patience) to adequately enjoy Trespasser. And I beg to differ about Trespasser not being a good thing for the company in any way. http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19990514/trespasser_01.htm to read Gamasutra's Trespasser postmortem and you'll see there are both positive AND negative aspects that were the result of Trespasser. I suggest you, and others who feel Trespasser was an absolute failure, read it and gain a more balanced perspective about Trespasser.
If anything, Trespasser's "failure" should inspire game designers to create something even "better".
Eep²
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:32:51 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >Brian Upton wrote:
> >
> >> An important part of game design is deciding what parts of reality you
> >> can ignore. Particularly in an action game the player only has a
> >> limited amount of bandwidth to focus on the different types of
> >> information that are presented to him. Giving him too much is as bad
> >> as giving him too little.
> >
> >Ah but that's the tricky part, isn't it? Who decides what's "too much" and
> >what's "not too much"? It's all relative. What YOU think is too much may
> >be too little to someone else.
>
> I decide. That's my job.
YOU decide for YOUR tastes, not mine. That's the problem with a lot of game developers; they seem to have their heads stuck up their asses with respect to what the player wants. Lose your egos and learn to develop versatile games which can adapt to the MULTITUDE of player preferences.
> >> You've been watching way too much science fiction. I did graduate
> >> work in "virtual reality" at the University of North Carolina in the
> >> mid-90's. The hardware you're fantasizing about doesn't exist even in
> >> the laboratory. Gloves and body suits have horrible problems
> >> recording accurate body positions. Every current headmount causes
> >> serious motion sickness in a significant fraction of users. The only
> >> really good force feedback system I've seen works on one fingertip
> >> only. People are working long hours on developing new technology, but
> >> there are enough roadblocks visible on the road ahead that there's a
> >> strong possibility that the "virtual reality" you see on Star Trek
> >> will _never_ exist. Ever, ever, ever. Just like there's a strong
> >> possibility that we will never invent a time machine or travel faster
> >> than the speed of light.
> >
> >Such pessimistic attitudes you have towards creativity. Tsk tsk...
>
> It's not pessimism. It's separating hype from solid science and
> engineering.
Ha! Solid science NEVER dismisses something as absolutely as you claim "solid science" to.
> >> 1. VR Suits don't exist -- anywhere. Not like you think they exist.
> >> There are serious technical reasons why VR suits may never exist.
> >
> >Such as? And do try to lay off the pessimism.
>
> * No one has ever demonstrated any way to do realistic full body force
> feedback. The suits that do exist are input devices only. The
> experimental exoskeletons I've seen have so many degrees of freedom
> that they're proving to be computationally intractable.
>
> * No one has come up with a good way to track a freely roaming
> operator. Existing magnetic trackers limit your movement to a few
> square yards. Experimental optical tracking rigs may solve the
> problem but the jury is still out.
>
> * Latency is a serious problem. If you want to avoid motion sickness
> you need to keep your feedback loop in the tens of milliseconds.
> Right now every part of the pipeline is too slow: tracking, rendering,
> CRT/LCD refresh speed.
>
> I could go on. The point is that "virtual reality" depends upon a
> whole lot of research efforts breaking the right way. Even if only a
> few break wrong the whole game is off.
<yawn> Perhaps you remember when computer games were text-only? Or how about when 3D games were vectors vs polygons? Just because something isn't possible RIGHT THIS DAMN NANOSECOND doesn't mean it won't be possible soon. Lose your pessimism please.
> >> 2. The holodeck isn't science fiction. It's a fairy tale. There's
> >> no reasonable extrapolation of current tech that suggests anything
> >> like it is remotely possible.
> >
> >Um, ever heard of holograms? And I hate to tell you this but 3D VR
> >is remotely similar to a holodeck. Learn to think relatively and perha
> >ps you'll see just how much things actually relate to each other.
>
> Um, do you know what a hologram is? How precisely do you envision
> that technology being extended to allow VR?
>
> 3D VR is remotely similar to a holodeck the way a bird is remotely
> similar to a winged horse. The existence of birds does nothing to
> prove the existence of winged horses.
Um, do you know what a holodeck is? http://members.aa.net/~skeksis/Star_Trek/FAQs/holodeck-faq.html and learn. Holograms, like flight to flying creatures, are basic to the holodeck. It's all relative.
> >>> 3. Scientists *have* managed to get a blind man to "see" a grid of
> >> dots by directly stimulating his visual cortex. But I suspect if I
> >> knew as much about neuroscience as I do about "virtual reality" I
> >> would be saying the same thing about neural implants as I said
> >> above VR suits, i.e. there's a fair chance the tech will never pan
> >> out.
> >
> >More pessimism. You're obviously not an artist, are you? I'm sure
> >people said humans'd never fly, but just look at us zipping aroun
> >d in jets, helicopters, etc today. Don't think so restrictively, eh?
>
> People also used to say that we'd have atomic powered airplanes. That
> idea was killed when the engineers figured out the shielding would
> make the plane too heavy to take off. With any speculative technology
> there is always the possibility of an unknown, insurmountable hurdle
> lurking in the shadows ahead. VR suits and neural implants have some
> big hurdles they'll have to clear before they become viable
> technologies. Maybe they'll make it and maybe they won't, but it's
> silly to talk about them as short-term inevitabilities when they're
> nothing more than long-term possibilities.
<yawn> More pessimism. I may just have to filter you if you keep it up...
Wim Libaers
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> schreef in berichtnieuws 3893875B...@tnlc.com...
[...]
>
> Well, duh, yes, of course one shouldn't have to continually hold the
action key down while on the ladder. The initial "grab" would just be to
"latch" onto the ladder. Once "latched", the player character would stay
"stuck" to it until pressing the action key again ("ungrab") and/or jumping
off, like you suggested.
>
kind, you know) don't have the same interfaces. Why is it most 3rd-person
action-adventure games don't have trouble with ladders? Perhaps FPSes could
learn some things from 'em, eh? <chuckle>
>
In Rogue Spear, it does work like this. The key used to get on a ladder is
the same you use to open doors and perform other actions. Still, climbing
ladders still isn't too great in that game because you can't use weapons
(not even a small pistol). So if an enemy waits below, your best bet is to
jump down firing your SMG, and hope something hits him before he can react.
When climbing ladders, things are even worse, because in the time you need
to get to the top of the ladder and regain the use of your gun, any enemy up
there will have plenty of time to kill you. The only way around this is to
throw a few grenades up there before you start climbing. Too bad you can't
shoot through walls and floors, that would certainly add some interesting
strategies.
--
Wim Libaers
Remove DONTSPAM from my reply address to send me mail.
Brian Upton
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Brian Upton wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> An important part of game design is deciding what parts of reality you
>> can ignore. Particularly in an action game the player only has a
>> limited amount of bandwidth to focus on the different types of
>> information that are presented to him. Giving him too much is as bad
>> as giving him too little.
>
>Ah but that's the tricky part, isn't it? Who decides what's "too much" and
>what's "not too much"? It's all relative. What YOU think is too much may
>be too little to someone else.
I decide. That's my job.
>
>> ...
>>
>> You've been watching way too much science fiction. I did graduate
>> work in "virtual reality" at the University of North Carolina in the
>> mid-90's. The hardware you're fantasizing about doesn't exist even in
>> the laboratory. Gloves and body suits have horrible problems
>> recording accurate body positions. Every current headmount causes
>> serious motion sickness in a significant fraction of users. The only
>> really good force feedback system I've seen works on one fingertip
>> only. People are working long hours on developing new technology, but
>> there are enough roadblocks visible on the road ahead that there's a
>> strong possibility that the "virtual reality" you see on Star Trek
>> will _never_ exist. Ever, ever, ever. Just like there's a strong
>> possibility that we will never invent a time machine or travel faster
>> than the speed of light.
>
>Such pessimistic attitudes you have towards creativity. Tsk tsk...
It's not pessimism. It's separating hype from solid science and
engineering.
>>...
>>
>> 1. VR Suits don't exist -- anywhere. Not like you think they exist.
>> There are serious technical reasons why VR suits may never exist.
>
>Such as? And do try to lay off the pessimism.
* No one has ever demonstrated any way to do realistic full body force
feedback. The suits that do exist are input devices only. The
experimental exoskeletons I've seen have so many degrees of freedom
that they're proving to be computationally intractable.
* No one has come up with a good way to track a freely roaming
operator. Existing magnetic trackers limit your movement to a few
square yards. Experimental optical tracking rigs may solve the
problem but the jury is still out.
* Latency is a serious problem. If you want to avoid motion sickness
you need to keep your feedback loop in the tens of milliseconds.
Right now every part of the pipeline is too slow: tracking, rendering,
CRT/LCD refresh speed.
I could go on. The point is that "virtual reality" depends upon a
whole lot of research efforts breaking the right way. Even if only a
few break wrong the whole game is off.
>> 2. The holodeck isn't science fiction. It's a fairy tale. There's
>> no reasonable extrapolation of current tech that suggests anything
>> like it is remotely possible.
>
>Um, ever heard of holograms? And I hate to tell you this but 3D VR
>is remotely similar to a holodeck. Learn to think relatively and perha
>ps you'll see just how much things actually relate to each other.
Um, do you know what a hologram is? How precisely do you envision
that technology being extended to allow VR?
3D VR is remotely similar to a holodeck the way a bird is remotely
similar to a winged horse. The existence of birds does nothing to
prove the existence of winged horses.
>>> 3. Scientists *have* managed to get a blind man to "see" a grid of
>> dots by directly stimulating his visual cortex. But I suspect if I
>> knew as much about neuroscience as I do about "virtual reality" I
>> would be saying the same thing about neural implants as I said
>> above VR suits, i.e. there's a fair chance the tech will never pan
>> out.
>
>More pessimism. You're obviously not an artist, are you? I'm sure
>people said humans'd never fly, but just look at us zipping aroun
>d in jets, helicopters, etc today. Don't think so restrictively, eh?
People also used to say that we'd have atomic powered airplanes. That
idea was killed when the engineers figured out the shielding would
make the plane too heavy to take off. With any speculative technology
there is always the possibility of an unknown, insurmountable hurdle
lurking in the shadows ahead. VR suits and neural implants have some
big hurdles they'll have to clear before they become viable
technologies. Maybe they'll make it and maybe they won't, but it's
silly to talk about them as short-term inevitabilities when they're
nothing more than long-term possibilities.
Gerry Quinn
>Brian Upton wrote:
>> >> 2. The holodeck isn't science fiction. It's a fairy tale. There's
>> >> no reasonable extrapolation of current tech that suggests anything
>> >> like it is remotely possible.
>> >
>> >Um, ever heard of holograms? And I hate to tell you this but 3D VR
>> >is remotely similar to a holodeck. Learn to think relatively and perha
>> >ps you'll see just how much things actually relate to each other.
>>
>> Um, do you know what a hologram is? How precisely do you envision
>> that technology being extended to allow VR?
>>
>> 3D VR is remotely similar to a holodeck the way a bird is remotely
>> similar to a winged horse. The existence of birds does nothing to
>> prove the existence of winged horses.
>
>Um, do you know what a holodeck is?
> http://members.aa.net/~skeksis/Star_Trek/FAQs/holodeck-faq.html and learn.
> Holograms, like flight to flying creatures, are basic to the holodeck. It's
> all relative.
>
Holograms are not fairy tales. "Force shields" are.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzle / Strategy Games and Kaleidoscope for Windows
Download evaluation versions free, no time limits
Try our new adware game "Skeet Shooting"
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
>
> Need I state it? Training is relative. Some people pick up training faster
than others. <shrug>
>
And it takes almost everyone a fair while of practise before they can eg
fight on reflex. You're not just holding back to block here, you're
specifically moving to intercept or redirect an incoming blow and that
requires trained reflexes. Not just to move, but to do the right thing. Now
swap fighting for any other activity requiring trained reflexes, and you've
got exactly the same problem.
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3894CAE3...@tnlc.com...
> >
> > Need I state it? Training is relative. Some people pick up training faster
> than others. <shrug>
> >
>
> And it takes almost everyone a fair while of practise before they can eg
> fight on reflex. You're not just holding back to block here, you're
> specifically moving to intercept or redirect an incoming blow and that
> requires trained reflexes. Not just to move, but to do the right thing. Now
> swap fighting for any other activity requiring trained reflexes, and you've
> got exactly the same problem.
Super. Like any well-designed interface, the amount of physical control should be configurable. Now drop it, eh? Sheesh...
Stephen Granade
> Brian Upton wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:32:51 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> > <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Such pessimistic attitudes you have towards creativity. Tsk tsk...
> >
> > It's not pessimism. It's separating hype from solid science and
> > engineering.
>
> Ha! Solid science NEVER dismisses something as absolutely as you claim "solid science" to.
I know this is undoubtedly wasted effort, but:
I do science for a living. In fact, I'd daresay that I do solid
science for a living. And what Brian is doing is exactly science:
exploring the problem and pointing out the stumbling blocks ahead. You
do not sit around saying, "Well, this is possible. Maybe. And if you
tell me why it won't, instead of trying to overcome those problems
I'll just say that you're a grey-visioned drone who can't grasp the
incredible incredulosity of my fantabulous ideas." What you're doing
is speculation, pinning all your hopes on the cosmic roulette wheel
coming up with one particular number.
To give an example, it's possible that sometime in the future we'll
see a radical change in our understanding of how energy is produced
and what laws it behaves. Until then, though, I will state
unequivocably that the three laws of thermodynamics will keep you from
producing a perpetual motion machine.
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade | Interested in adventure games?
sgra...@phy.duke.edu | Visit About.com's IF Page
Duke University, Physics Dept | http://interactfiction.about.com
SpammersDie
>> >> can ignore.
>>
and
>> >what's "not too much"? It's all relative. What YOU think is too much may
>> >be too little to someone else.
>>
>> I decide. That's my job.
>
>YOU decide for YOUR tastes, not mine. That's the problem with a lot
>of game developers; they seem to have their heads stuck up their asses
>with respect to what the player wants. Lose your egos and learn to develop
>versatile games which can adapt to the MULTITUDE of player preferences.
More generally, the guy who invested the money to develop all these
wonderful new games is who decides. It's his moolah that's at risk, after
all.
You have a lot of ambitious ideas about the future of gaming. How much money
have you invested into R&D or companies doing R&D in all this cool new
stuff? All this speculation is fun and makes for great discussion but at the
end of the day, its $$$ as well as optimism that makes the world go around.
SpammersDie
Doing what?
>There's no need to take the concept of training
>to such an absolute degree. I never mentioned physically training for
>a game, but, for example, a VR suit would ALLOW physically controlling
>the player character but it would not be REQUIRED to do so. Mostly
>the suit would probably be there for tactile feedback and seated
>player control. For example, forward, backward, rotational, and
>left-right movement could still be handled by a keyboard, mouse,
>control pad, joystick, etc, while leaning, picking up and dropping objects,
>etc could be done by the suit.
To quote:
[Eep] >>The end result is either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a
[Eep] >> direct neural interface where THERE IS NO NEED FOR
[Eep] >>A MONITOR, KEYBOARD, MOUSE, OR SPEAKERS...or VR suits.
That most certainly does imply taking things to an absolute degree. It sure
implies a lot more than using mere tactile feedback and seated control.
>Game training does INDEED train the character
Training implies imparting skills and knowledge not previously possessed.
The CHARACTER (Garrett or Freeman) knew how to jump, crawl into pipes, push
crates and manipulate objects long before the 'training' exercise began - no
reasonable case can be made that they didn't. It's the PLAYER that needs to
be trained how to command the CHARACTER to do these things. Therefore, it
*is* the player that's being trained, not the character.
>I could also argue that gaming is a sport.
Fine, replace "sport" with "intensive physical activity." Ok?
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:389569A9...@tnlc.com...
>
> Super. Like any well-designed interface, the amount of physical control
should be configurable.
What about the mental capabilities? If you have a game which requires reflex
reactions you can't avoid that without redesigning the whole damn thing for
a completely different style of play. Regardless of how you're getting your
input. You may as well have two seperate games.
Brian Upton
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>...
>
>The key point you're missing is that holograms are remotely like holodecks.
>Think relatively. Holodecks are based off holographic projection and force
>-feedback shields. While the latter doesn't exist (that I know of) at this time
>, the former does. Hence, holograms are relatively LIKE holodecks.
Holograms are not holographic projection. Holograms are photographs
of interference patterns. You can't walk around inside them. You
can't animate them. You can't touch them.
Holographic projection does not exist. It's make-believe (just like
virtual reality and nanotech and holodecks.)
Brian Upton
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Brian Upton wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:32:51 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
>> <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Brian Upton wrote:
>> >
>> >> An important part of game design is deciding what parts of reality you
>> >> can ignore. Particularly in an action game the player only has a
>> >> limited amount of bandwidth to focus on the different types of
>> >> information that are presented to him. Giving him too much is as bad
>> >> as giving him too little.
>> >
>> >Ah but that's the tricky part, isn't it? Who decides what's "too much" and
>> >what's "not too much"? It's all relative. What YOU think is too much may
>> >be too little to someone else.
>>
>> I decide. That's my job.
>
>YOU decide for YOUR tastes, not mine. That's the problem with a lot of ga
>me developers; they seem to have their heads stuck up their asses with re
>spect to what the player wants. Lose your egos and learn to develop versa
>tile games which can adapt to the MULTITUDE of player preferences.
Actually, we're pretty sensitive to giving the players what they want.
A lot of the features in _Rogue Spear_ were driven by fan feedback on
_Rainbow Six_.
We're just not interested in giving *you* what you want. Because no
matter how cool you think it sounds, the "hyper-realistic" game you're
describing would be deathly dull in practice.
>> >> 2. The holodeck isn't science fiction. It's a fairy tale. There's
>> >> no reasonable extrapolation of current tech that suggests anything
>> >> like it is remotely possible.
>> >
>> >Um, ever heard of holograms? And I hate to tell you this but 3D VR
>> >is remotely similar to a holodeck. Learn to think relatively and perha
>> >ps you'll see just how much things actually relate to each other.
>>
>> Um, do you know what a hologram is? How precisely do you envision
>> that technology being extended to allow VR?
>>
>> 3D VR is remotely similar to a holodeck the way a bird is remotely
>> similar to a winged horse. The existence of birds does nothing to
>> prove the existence of winged horses.
>
>Um, do you know what a holodeck is? http://members.aa.net/~skek
>sis/Star_Trek/FAQs/holodeck-faq.html and learn. Holograms, like flig
>ht to flying creatures, are basic to the holodeck. It's all relative.
Jeez, Eep, it's all make-believe. Why don't you post a pointer to a
_Lord of the Rings_ website while you're at it so we can all read up
on elf genetics.
Here what the site says point by point:
1. "The walls can generate holographic images which appear to extend
for an unlimited distance."
FACT -- Holograms are static images.
2. "Holograms can be projected into space."
FACT -- Holograms cannot be projected.
3. "Holograms can be augmented with force beams to simulate solid,
tangible objects."
FACT -- Force beams are make-believe.
4. "Holograms and force beams can be augmented with replicator
technology to provide actual substance."
FACT -- Replicators are make-believe.
5. "An animate object is comprised of a partially stable form of
matter created by the Holodeck replicators for use in the Holodeck
only. This material is stable only within a Holodeck or holosuite, and
degrades into energy if removed."
FACT -- Such a "partially stable form of matter" is make-believe.
The holodeck is a fun fantasy, but given what we currently know about
how the universe works, it's about as plausable as warp drive or the
transporter. (i.e. not very.)
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:389527C7...@tnlc.com...
But they're not. You're only presenting ideas, never anything resembling one
single game. You're not even presenting particularly useful theories. So far
I've seen two: games should be realistic, and games should be highly
configurable. The first is certainly not the One True Way. The second is a
software engineering, artwork and game design nightmare. By comparison,
Brandon Van Every's Rule of Three is a genuinely useful rule of thumb for
keeping a plotline moving without clogging it up too much.
In case you're wondering what I've done by way of actual game design, visit
www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Maze/3265/25k.htm.
Sure. So how come you're arguing with those of us who know about tech
development about how we view the process?
But that doesn't give us an indication that the holodeck is actually
possible. We know how to project the images, that's it. With even the
fastest computing hardware on the planet we can't get the rendering fast
enough. Our input devices are crap. We have no decent way of specifying the
virtual world. Language recognition still sucks. Need I continue?
> >
> > The difference is, most of them weren't aware of the slightest
possibility.
> > We're aware of what may be possible today, but we're not sure it will.
The
> > brain is a damn complex piece of equipment and it's believed that there
are
> > physical limits on how much computing power we can throw together.
There's
> > one limit for you.
>
> Limits are relative. What's limiting to you may not be to me (which is
becoming more and more obvious the more I communicate with you). Keep your
limits to yourself. :)
>
With the laws of physics as we know them it's currently impossible for me
sitting in the UK to communicate with someone in Japan with a latency of
<100ms, due to the speed of light. Would it be reasonable of me to expect to
play a decent game of Street Fighter (which needs lower latencies still)
from my living room with someone in Japan within my lifetime? Likewise, that
same speed limit affects how fast we can shift data and therefore how fast
we can compute. It may not be the case, it may be possible to travel faster
than light, but if not then you're as limited by that as I am.
> > And I can tell you now that a full simulation of reality (or any area of
it
> > bigger than the computer running the simulation) would be impossible. A
> > computer capable of that would be able to simulate it's own processing
> > faster than it actually runs, which isn't possible.
>
> Ever heard the expression "more than the sum of its parts"? I think that
may apply here. You do the math...
>
The point is that we already know what the whole is. It's that little figure
reading "42 GHz" or whatever. We might be able to find ways to pack more
computing power into a smaller space, but that 42GHz stays constant. It's
much like the lossless recursive compression algorithm that you can keep
using over and over again to take any file to 1 bit in size.
> Careful...you're getting closer to me filtering you again. :) I can only
take so much of your pessimism...
>
I think the word you are looking for is, ironically enough, realism. I see
good reasons as to why certain things may never happen or may prove
prohibitively difficult. I've never said they won't happen, they may well
do. But I'm not about to base my entire concept of game design around
something that might prove impossible. If you can't handle that, plonk away,
Nathan Mates
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Think of my posts about game design in these newsgroups as my "design
>doc", if you want.
Think of the flames you get as a "You're fired." Thank you for
comprehending that.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Network Programmer, Battlezone 2: see http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. BZ2 _Now In Stores_! See above!
# "What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein
Jason Shankel
Eep² wrote:
>
> If Maxis (who the person I responded to supposedly worked for) did some kind of marketing survey to see how gamers would react to "hyper-realism" in games, I would perhaps be able to accept what he (Maxis) says with respect to this more seriously. However, I doubt such surveys have been done.
>
Why would you doubt that? Of *course* we do customer surveys.
We're in business to make $$$ here. Knowing what your customers
want is kind of critical to that.
More than realism, we've found that user-customizable game elements are
are important to our customers. Pluggable buildings, downloadable
appliances, user-modifiable animations. Stuff like that.
The BAT (Building Architect Tool) for SimCity 3000 has been very
successful. It is in no way based on "realistic" principles of architecture.
It's basically a 3d paint program.
The jury is still out on the Sims (having just been released and all) but
our research indicates that the web page generation and character story
capabilities will be the biggest customer draws.
--
Jason Shankel
Maxis, Inc
s h a n k e l
at
p o b o x . c o m
"Let's teach those robots how to play hardball."
- Laurie Anderson
Enjoy smooth, refreshing OpenTrek at http://www.pobox.com/~shankel/opentrek.html
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO <pe...@cowderoy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:874it6$eh2$1...@nthfen.demon.co.uk...
> But that doesn't give us an indication that the holodeck is actually
> possible. We know how to project the images, that's it.
Correction: we know how to embed a static 3d image into an object. There are
probably further tricks with eg polarised light and glasses but they don't
work for more than one person. May as well use a headset.
Noah Falstein
Eep² wrote:
> I suggest you, and others who feel Trespasser was an absolute failure, read it and gain a more balanced perspective about Trespasser.
>
Thanks, I have read the article. But please consider that others may know more about what happened than can be gleaned by an article written for Gamasutra. I was an executive producer at Dreamworks when Trespasser was begun and I saw first-hand the swath it cut through the company. Sure, the format of the post-mortems in Game Developer and Gamasutra includes "lessons learned" and puts a positive light on things. Did people learn from it and will they do better in the future? Quite probably. Are they still working for Dreamworks? With a few exceptions (mostly people who knew better in the first place), no. Does anyone in the company think those lessons were worth losing millions of
dollars? If so, they're keeping very quiet about it.
L.J. Wischik
>OK, go find a nice wide number of NGs and do a straw-poll. Ask players if
>they want to have to watch their character take a dump every couple of
>hours.
In a U9 thread some players suggested having the player take a dump, and
using this opportunity to do garbage collection. Yuck.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:389569A9...@tnlc.com...
> >
> > Super. Like any well-designed interface, the amount of physical control
> should be configurable.
>
> What about the mental capabilities? If you have a game which requires reflex
> reactions you can't avoid that without redesigning the whole damn thing for
> a completely different style of play. Regardless of how you're getting your
> input. You may as well have two seperate games.
There you go again with your 2 separate games. Look, if you're a crappy designer you're going to have a narrow-minded design.
Eep²
> >Now YOU'RE doing it.
>
> Doing what?
See below.
> >There's no need to take the concept of training
> >to such an absolute degree. I never mentioned physically training for
> >a game, but, for example, a VR suit would ALLOW physically controlling
> >the player character but it would not be REQUIRED to do so. Mostly
> >the suit would probably be there for tactile feedback and seated
> >player control. For example, forward, backward, rotational, and
> >left-right movement could still be handled by a keyboard, mouse,
> >control pad, joystick, etc, while leaning, picking up and dropping objects,
> >etc could be done by the suit.
>
> To quote:
>
> [Eep] >>The end result is either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a
> [Eep] >> direct neural interface where THERE IS NO NEED FOR
> [Eep] >>A MONITOR, KEYBOARD, MOUSE, OR SPEAKERS...or VR suits.
>
> That most certainly does imply taking things to an absolute degree. It sure
> implies a lot more than using mere tactile feedback and seated control.
Note that I said that is the END RESULT, not what today's current gaming interfaces will automatically blip into tomorrow. You jumped to the conclusion, not I.
> >Game training does INDEED train the character
>
> Training implies imparting skills and knowledge not previously possessed.
> The CHARACTER (Garrett or Freeman) knew how to jump, crawl into pipes, push
> crates and manipulate objects long before the 'training' exercise began - no
> reasonable case can be made that they didn't. It's the PLAYER that needs to
> be trained how to command the CHARACTER to do these things. Therefore, it
> *is* the player that's being trained, not the character.
Sorry, it's both. The character can't do anything without the player; hence character control. Sure the programmer coded in all the POSSIBILITIES, but it still takes a player to make the character do what the player wants the character to do. Duh.
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3895EEB3...@tnlc.com...
So how do you solve the problem? Note the reflex problem. You're going to
have to solve that, not walk around it. Because walking round it leads to
either a diluted and crappy game or else the two seperate games I suggested.
Any ideas?
Link
[snip any number of trolls]
Okay Eep, I just clued into your hidden agenda.
You're trying to make sure no one EVER makes a game with any of the features
you describe. Congratulations, I think you've managed to put off virtually
every developer in these newsgroups. Feel better now? Or are you going to
continue beating a dead horse? (now there's a rhetorical question if I ever
saw one.)
- Mike
Eep²
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:27:29 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >Brian Upton wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:32:51 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> >> <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Brian Upton wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> An important part of game design is deciding what parts of reality you
> >> >> can ignore. Particularly in an action game the player only has a
> >> >> limited amount of bandwidth to focus on the different types of
> >> >> information that are presented to him. Giving him too much is as bad
> >> >> as giving him too little.
> >> >
> >> >Ah but that's the tricky part, isn't it? Who decides what's "too much" and
> >> >what's "not too much"? It's all relative. What YOU think is too much may
> >> >be too little to someone else.
> >>
> >> I decide. That's my job.
> >
> >YOU decide for YOUR tastes, not mine. That's the problem with a lot of ga
> >me developers; they seem to have their heads stuck up their asses with re
> >spect to what the player wants. Lose your egos and learn to develop versa
> >tile games which can adapt to the MULTITUDE of player preferences.
>
> Actually, we're pretty sensitive to giving the players what they want.
> A lot of the features in _Rogue Spear_ were driven by fan feedback on
> _Rainbow Six_.
>
> We're just not interested in giving *you* what you want. Because no
> matter how cool you think it sounds, the "hyper-realistic" game you're
> describing would be deathly dull in practice.
I really doubt you have a clear enough understanding of what I mean by "hyper-realistic" to judge my opinion so harshly. Anyway, my point is that 3D games are getting more and more realistic--in many different ways.
> >> >> 2. The holodeck isn't science fiction. It's a fairy tale. There's
> >> >> no reasonable extrapolation of current tech that suggests anything
> >> >> like it is remotely possible.
> >> >
> >> >Um, ever heard of holograms? And I hate to tell you this but 3D VR
> >> >is remotely similar to a holodeck. Learn to think relatively and perha
> >> >ps you'll see just how much things actually relate to each other.
> >>
> >> Um, do you know what a hologram is? How precisely do you envision
> >> that technology being extended to allow VR?
> >>
> >> 3D VR is remotely similar to a holodeck the way a bird is remotely
> >> similar to a winged horse. The existence of birds does nothing to
> >> prove the existence of winged horses.
> >
> >Um, do you know what a holodeck is? http://members.aa.net/~skek
> >sis/Star_Trek/FAQs/holodeck-faq.html and learn. Holograms, like flig
> >ht to flying creatures, are basic to the holodeck. It's all relative.
>
> Jeez, Eep, it's all make-believe. Why don't you post a pointer to a
> _Lord of the Rings_ website while you're at it so we can all read up
> on elf genetics.
>
> Here what the site says point by point:
>
> 1. "The walls can generate holographic images which appear to extend
> for an unlimited distance."
>
> FACT -- Holograms are static images.
>
> 2. "Holograms can be projected into space."
>
> FACT -- Holograms cannot be projected.
>
> 3. "Holograms can be augmented with force beams to simulate solid,
> tangible objects."
>
> FACT -- Force beams are make-believe.
>
> 4. "Holograms and force beams can be augmented with replicator
> technology to provide actual substance."
>
> FACT -- Replicators are make-believe.
>
> 5. "An animate object is comprised of a partially stable form of
> matter created by the Holodeck replicators for use in the Holodeck
> only. This material is stable only within a Holodeck or holosuite, and
> degrades into energy if removed."
>
> FACT -- Such a "partially stable form of matter" is make-believe.
>
> The holodeck is a fun fantasy, but given what we currently know about
> how the universe works, it's about as plausable as warp drive or the
> transporter. (i.e. not very.)
More pessimism...I won't even bother with a more thorough response because you'll just respond with more pessimism.
Eep²
Well that's nice and all, but, again, I'm not attempting to create a "design doc". However, I HAVE created improvement lists for Active Worlds (http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html) and Tomb Raider (http://tnlc.com.eep/tr/improve/) which are more in-depth than most of ideas I mention in the newsgroups.
And you might want to learn how to actually create links properly, as I ran into a few that had the wrong slash (\ instead of /).
<chuckle> Like you? What makes YOU qualified? You have a pidly little website devoted to some RPG that doesn't even exist. Super. I have as much right to talk about game design as you, sport. Get over yourself.
And as for the people who claim to work for Maxis, Red Storm, etc, so what? This is an open forum and anyone can contribute. If you don't want to read my posts, filter me. It's that simple.
> > > > > > Some developer/publisher
> > > > > > has to take the leap eventually--the sooner the better. Once gamers see h
> > > > > >ow cool a tactile game would be, a market will be created for such VR suit
> > > > > >s and game design innovation will have taken the next step. The end resul
> > > > > >t is either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a direct neural interface where ther
> > > > > >e is no need for a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or speakers...or VR suits.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. VR Suits don't exist -- anywhere. Not like you think they exist.
> > > > > There are serious technical reasons why VR suits may never exist.
> > > >
> > > > Such as? And do try to lay off the pessimism.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. The holodeck isn't science fiction. It's a fairy tale. There's
> > > > > no reasonable extrapolation of current tech that suggests anything
> > > > > like it is remotely possible.
> > > >
> > > > Um, ever heard of holograms?
> > >
> > > Ever been inside one? And may I ask just what happens when the player dies?
> > > Or how you plan to make it possible to touch things?
> >
> > The key point you're missing is that holograms are remotely like holodecks.
> Think relatively. Holodecks are based off holographic projection and
> force-feedback shields. While the latter doesn't exist (that I know of) at
> this time, the former does. Hence, holograms are relatively LIKE holodecks.
> >
> But that doesn't give us an indication that the holodeck is actually
> possible. We know how to project the images, that's it. With even the
> fastest computing hardware on the planet we can't get the rendering fast
> enough. Our input devices are crap. We have no decent way of specifying the
> virtual world. Language recognition still sucks. Need I continue?
Knock yourself out. But at least do try to remain on-topic and not tangent off into far-fetched concepts that aren't yet quite possible technologically. The topic is "realism" in case you forgot.
> > > The difference is, most of them weren't aware of the slightest possibility.
> > > We're aware of what may be possible today, but we're not sure it will. The
> > > brain is a damn complex piece of equipment and it's believed that there are
> > > physical limits on how much computing power we can throw together. There's
> > > one limit for you.
> >
> > Limits are relative. What's limiting to you may not be to me (which is
> becoming more and more obvious the more I communicate with you). Keep your
> limits to yourself. :)
> >
> With the laws of physics as we know them it's currently impossible for me
> sitting in the UK to communicate with someone in Japan with a latency of
> <100ms, due to the speed of light. Would it be reasonable of me to expect to
> play a decent game of Street Fighter (which needs lower latencies still)
> from my living room with someone in Japan within my lifetime? Likewise, that
> same speed limit affects how fast we can shift data and therefore how fast
> we can compute. It may not be the case, it may be possible to travel faster
> than light, but if not then you're as limited by that as I am.
Hence, limits are relative. <yawn> Do try to pay attention please as I tire of having to reiterate points to you.
> > > And I can tell you now that a full simulation of reality (or any area of it
> > > bigger than the computer running the simulation) would be impossible. A
> > > computer capable of that would be able to simulate it's own processing
> > > faster than it actually runs, which isn't possible.
> >
> > Ever heard the expression "more than the sum of its parts"? I think that
> may apply here. You do the math...
> >
> The point is that we already know what the whole is. It's that little figure
> reading "42 GHz" or whatever. We might be able to find ways to pack more
> computing power into a smaller space, but that 42GHz stays constant. It's
> much like the lossless recursive compression algorithm that you can keep
> using over and over again to take any file to 1 bit in size.
What the HELL are you babbling about? Computing speeds are increasing all the time. Attempt to remain coherent, eh?
> > Careful...you're getting closer to me filtering you again. :) I can only
> take so much of your pessimism...
> >
> I think the word you are looking for is, ironically enough, realism. I see
> good reasons as to why certain things may never happen or may prove
> prohibitively difficult. I've never said they won't happen, they may well
> do. But I'm not about to base my entire concept of game design around
> something that might prove impossible. If you can't handle that, plonk away,
Then that's YOUR limitation you're setting for yourself as a so-called "game designer". <shrug>
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message ...
>
> [snip any number of trolls]
>
> Okay Eep, I just clued into your hidden agenda.
Here's a quarter; go buy a different clue.
> You're trying to make sure no one EVER makes a game with any of the features
> you describe. Congratulations, I think you've managed to put off virtually
> every developer in these newsgroups. Feel better now? Or are you going to
> continue beating a dead horse? (now there's a rhetorical question if I ever
> saw one.)
You couldn't be any more wrong. :) Not my fault if people responding are moronic dimwits who can't see the possibilities I'm talking about. <shrug>
Eep²
> >> To quote:
> >>
> >> [Eep] >>The end result is either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a
> >> [Eep] >> direct neural interface where THERE IS NO NEED FOR
> >> [Eep] >>A MONITOR, KEYBOARD, MOUSE, OR SPEAKERS...or VR suits.
> >>
> >> That most certainly does imply taking things to an absolute degree. It sure
> >> implies a lot more than using mere tactile feedback and seated control.
> >
> >Note that I said that is the END RESULT, not what today's current gaming
> interfaces will automatically blip into tomorrow. You jumped to the
> conclusion, not I.
>
> So everyone's supposed to ignore the flaws with your END RESULT because the
> steps towards getting there won't have those flaws.
>
> Guffaw.
>
> You tripped over your own statements and aren't man enough to admit it and
> let it go. End of story.
Um, poor sport are you? Not my fault if you can't follow my logic.
> >> >Game training does INDEED train the character
> >>
> >> Training implies imparting skills and knowledge not previously possessed.
> >> The CHARACTER (Garrett or Freeman) knew how to jump, crawl into pipes, push
> >> crates and manipulate objects long before the 'training' exercise began - no
> >> reasonable case can be made that they didn't. It's the PLAYER that needs to
> >> be trained how to command the CHARACTER to do these things. Therefore, it
> >> *is* the player that's being trained, not the character.
> >
> >Sorry, it's both. The character can't do anything without the player; hence character
> >control. Sure the programmer coded in all the POSSIBILITIES, but it still takes a
> >player to make the character do what the player wants the character to do. Duh.
>
> Sure, by this logic, driving schools train the CAR to drive.
>
> Keep going, Eep - you're better entertainment than some of the games we're
> discussing.
Enjoy my filter, pinky. :)
SpammersDie
>>
>> [Eep] >>The end result is either a holodeck (ala Star Trek) or a
>> [Eep] >> direct neural interface where THERE IS NO NEED FOR
>> [Eep] >>A MONITOR, KEYBOARD, MOUSE, OR SPEAKERS...or VR suits.
>>
>> That most certainly does imply taking things to an absolute degree. It
sure
>> implies a lot more than using mere tactile feedback and seated control.
>
>Note that I said that is the END RESULT, not what today's current gaming
interfaces will automatically blip into tomorrow. You jumped to the
conclusion, not I.
So everyone's supposed to ignore the flaws with your END RESULT because the
steps towards getting there won't have those flaws.
Guffaw.
You tripped over your own statements and aren't man enough to admit it and
let it go. End of story.
>
Anders Henriksson
>Oh and interface consistency is relative. All games (FPSes aren't the
>only kind, you know) don't have the same interfaces. Why is it most
>3rd-person action-adventure games don't have trouble with ladders?
>Perhaps FPSes could learn some things from 'em, eh? <chuckle>
No, having FPSes acquire this type of controls from action-adventures
may not be such a good idea. It might work in a single-player setting,
but most likely not in a multiplayer game.
The reason it works well in action-adventures is that you seldom do
ladder climbing and fire fights at the same time. You use the ladders
while in "exploring mode". Having a scene where the bad guys would show
up as the player character is climbing a long ladder would probably be
hated by the users as being "unfair".
In FPSes you are almost always very close to the enemy and anything
which makes your movements predictable is bad for you. Ladders and
elevators already are weak spots which most players avoid if possible.
Every fraction of a second of extra sticking to ladders makes you
more of a sitting duck thus facilitating cheap shots. And cheap shots
is one thing I'm firmly sure most multiplayer games users despise.
/Anders
--
"NSA -- We read your mail so you don't have to"
- from http://www.attrition.org/
Eep²
Then ladders shouldn't be in FPSes if it detracts from deathmatch so much. Give me a break...FPSes aren't JUST about deathmatch! It would be nice if all the deathmatchers would actually evolve to the next level already...it's just getting ridiculous how primitive deathmatch players choose to remain compared to the evolution of the gaming industry as a whole. Pathetic...
Anders Henriksson
>Keesia Wirt/Shawn Hanson wrote:
>> Eep² wrote:
>> > Jason Shankel wrote:
>> > > Realism and good gameplay are not synonymous. Realism *can* enhance
>> > > gameplay, by increasing the verisimilitude of the game experience,
>> > > but true realism can be a burden.
<Jasons examples of "realistic" effects not existing in Tomb Raider snipped:
- Long time slumber/resting (6h+)
- Hospitalization and realistic healing>
>> > > But none of this realism would make Tomb Raider a better game.
>> > How do YOU know? I think they would. While it may lose some mindless
>> > action fans, I think hyperrealism would attract other fans. I'd LOVE
>> > to have to play a game VERy realistically instead of all the
>> > unbelievable bullshit in most games these days. I LIKE realistic
>> > games--and the more realistic the better because it will feel more
>> > "real" (hence, realism) and true instead of fake and false.
I think that for a lot of gamers and for most of the prospective buyers
of games such as Tomb Raider, as realistic as possible is not the goal.
I think that what gamers want is for the gameplay to be _plausible_. I
wouldn't care if the currents in a sewer system is not perfectly realistic,
and I would rather see that the game developers focus on features which
are relevant to gameplay.
You made some good points regarding Tomb Raider on your web page. There
are areas where increased computing power enables better games. More
realistic handling of character animations is one such area. When walking
or running the animations must match the movement of the figure. Weapons
should be held in the hands, not hovering in front of them etc.
But when realism gets in the way of gameplay lots of people will shun
it. It doesn't have to be irrelevant to be shunned, it just has to be
a disadvantage. In quake2 for instance, most multiplayer gamers will
crank up their gamma settings until the screen is glaring just to get
an edge on the competition. This ruins the looks of the game, but it
makes them perform better so they trade away realism hands down.
>There are already plenty of gamers who criticise realism in games
>today. AI, physics, locations, character motivation, plot, etc, etc,
>etc--it's all here being criticized already. I doubt game developers
>will ALWAYS get reality correct in games, but I think it's a very
>challengable, worthy goal to reach for: reality is far more
>interesting to model than fantasy. Theoretical physics is proving
>that every day.
AI, character motivation, and plots most likely won't ever become
realistic. Simulating human intelligence without cutting corners
big time requires knowledge and computing power not likely to emerge
in the foreseeable future (say 10-20 years). Motivation and plots
are not possible to be classified as realistic or not. They may or
may not depend on real world things, but that is probably not
relevant. Once again, the keyword is not real but _plausible_.
For AI this means characters who give reasonable response and
perform reasonable actions without having to cheat by using secret
information or massive parallell actions not possible for humans.
Physics modelling and object handling stand better chances to
be implemented, though.
>> > > In the case of the Sims, there are numerous aspects of "real
>> > > life" that that team intentionally left out of the product.
>> > > Not because they'd be too hard to simulate, but because they
>> > > would not be fun and would not contribute to the essential
>> > > economies of the game.
>> > How do you know? Anything designed well can contribute to
>> > a game's essential economy(ies).
I find this argument rather strange. Are you implying that anything
could be of value to any game if designed well? If not, then what
is your point? It's reasonable to assume that the designers had a
walkthrough of possible features and decided on a set which seemed
possible and relevant.
For instance, in a city simulation, traffic jams seem reasonable to
include but the effect of rainfall on the capacity of water power
plants is not worthwhile IMO. Neither is micromanagement such as
running nuclear plants safely and making sure your power plants are
shut down properly in case your power grid fails.
>> > > Realism is not the ultimate goal of design. Suspension of
>> > > disbelief is. When you watch a Shwartzenegger movie, you
>> > > *expect* to see cartoon violence. That suspension of
>> > > disbelief enhances the narrative.
This is a very good point, IMO.
>> > I say more realism is the key and 3D games are getting more
>> > and more realistic all the time. It's already happening whether
>> > you'd like to admit it or not. :)
>> I disagree. 3D games are just getting better at depicting those
>> selective bits of reality that they choose to portray [light,
>> physics, etc.]. They aren't becoming more "real" any more than
>> better film stock made movies more "real."
>How ironic that just above you elaborated on relativity yet you
>failed to apply it in this context. Those "selective bits of
>reality" are where "3D games are just getting better at depicting"
>them. Hence, relative reality.
You have a very peculiar way of using the realism concept which I
find a bit confusing. Above you use better rendering possibilities
(which might be used to increase realism) as a reason why including
more real life elements in the games is The Future of gaming.
While some real world elements are good to simulate, many may not
be. Realism for it's own sake is a good research topic but it's
not a good base for a game.
>But I still can argue that more and more 3D games I read about are
>becoming based on more realistic things. SWAT teams, undercover cops,
>gangsters, military platoons/squads (whatever) and individual soldiers,
>thievery--see a pattern yet?
This is indeed a trend, both in new games and in aftermarket modifications
for existing games such as Half-Life and Quake. But there are still a
lot of tradeoffs between realism and gameplay, and most FPS gamers are
not interested i hyperrealism.
A typical example is fire fights in Action Quake 2. Suppose you have only
a pistol and the enemy has a machine pistol. The reasonable real world
response is to run far away and hide. Such behavior is however despised
of by most players as it keeps many of the already dead players waiting
for the next round to begin. AQ2s realistic damage system is tolerated
and appreciated only because rounds end quickly. Defensive and careful
playing is not fun to watch, just like drying paint ain't very fun either.
Brian Upton
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Brian Upton wrote:
>
>>
>> We're just not interested in giving *you* what you want. Because no
>> matter how cool you think it sounds, the "hyper-realistic" game you're
>> describing would be deathly dull in practice.
>
>I really doubt you have a clear enough understanding of what I mean by
> "hyper-realistic" to judge my opinion so harshly. Anyway, my point is tha
>t 3D games are getting more and more realistic--in many different ways.
Okay. Tell me what you do mean by a "hyper-realistic" game. A
bullet-pointed feature list would be great.
>[Explanation of why the holodeck is make-believe snipped]
>
>More pessimism...I won't even bother with a more thorough response be
>cause you'll just respond with more pessimism.
Wishing doesn't make it so, Eep. Just because someone invents a cool
fantasy does not mean that it's inevitable that it will come to pass.
Brian Upton
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
>And as for the people who claim to work for Maxis, Red Storm, etc, so what? Th
>is is an open forum and anyone can contribute. If you don't want to read my post
>s, filter me. It's that simple.
Are you suggesting that I'm lying about who I am? Jeez, Eep. Go to
the Red Storm website and look under the corporate bios section. You
can see a picture of me eating a yummy mini-donut at Siggraph '94. Or
send me email at brian...@redstorm.com. It's in my sig. Or send
email to webm...@redstorm.com and ask Mur if I'm real.
I also can vouch for Jason Shankel. We've been in roundtables
together at GDC and I've exchanged email with him before.
On the other hand, all I know about you is a silly pseudonym.
What's your real name, Eep?
Where do you work?
What are your credentials?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:38962521...@tnlc.com...
I've seen them, and in terms of game design they're still crap. I took a
list of desired improvements to Warhammer 40,000 (which very much *does*
exist) and made a game out of them which has notably different play
characteristics. You've still only got the list of desired improvements, and
from what I've seen most of them are engine issues.
> And you might want to learn how to actually create links properly, as I
ran into a few that had the wrong slash (\ instead of /).
>
Fixed. AFAIK GeoShits can handle it anyway - you're the first one to mention
it and I'm pretty certain one or more of the guys on the mailing list will
have taken a look round.
> > > > > Such pessimistic attitudes you have towards creativity. Tsk tsk...
> > > >
> > > > Why shouldn't he have? Brian's been there and done it. You've done a
little
> > > > artwork, but last time I looked you weren't too great at developing
new
> > > > technology...
> > >
> > > I develop ideas, not tech. Of course I'm not TRYING to develop new
tech
> > but am simply discussing game design (and other) issues. Try to keep
that in
> > mind.
> > >
> > Sure. So how come you're arguing with those of us who know about tech
> > development about how we view the process?
>
> <chuckle> Like you? What makes YOU qualified?
How about the fact I actually know what I'm talking about? And what the
development processes are? And the difference between "theoretically not
impossible" and "doable"?
> You have a pidly little website devoted to some RPG that doesn't even
exist.
We'll ignore the fact I've played 50+ games then. You see, 25K is a
miniature-based wargame, not a computer game and not an RPG. Assuming the
link to the BattleBible still works, you can play the game with the
information on the site, a few dice and a bunch of toy soldiers. The game
quite decidedly exists.
>Super. I have as much right to talk about game design as you, sport. Get
over yourself.
>
You can talk all you like. I can't stop you. I won't try and stop you. I'll
try to convince you you're wrong when I think you are, but that's a
different matter, it's commonly known as debate. But you still haven't
actually designed a game, whereas I have.
>
> Knock yourself out. But at least do try to remain on-topic and not tangent
off into far-fetched concepts that aren't yet quite possible
technologically. The topic is "realism" in case you forgot.
>
And the fact we may never be able to fully achieve it is totally irrelevant
I suppose, as are game design issues we might face if we do. Perhaps those
issues affect whether realism is the goal or not?
Care to clarify that? Do you mean that the value of the limit bears some
relationship to the numbers 0 and 1? Do you mean that they depend on certain
values? Do you mean that they're subjective? Your use of the word relative
is more than a little ambiguous, which makes it useless for debate.
> > > > And I can tell you now that a full simulation of reality (or any
area of it
> > > > bigger than the computer running the simulation) would be
impossible. A
> > > > computer capable of that would be able to simulate it's own
processing
> > > > faster than it actually runs, which isn't possible.
> > >
> > > Ever heard the expression "more than the sum of its parts"? I think
that
> > may apply here. You do the math...
> > >
> > The point is that we already know what the whole is. It's that little
figure
> > reading "42 GHz" or whatever. We might be able to find ways to pack more
> > computing power into a smaller space, but that 42GHz stays constant.
It's
> > much like the lossless recursive compression algorithm that you can keep
> > using over and over again to take any file to 1 bit in size.
>
> What the HELL are you babbling about? Computing speeds are increasing all
the time. Attempt to remain coherent, eh?
>
Sorry, I forgot that you can't spot an example within an abstract
explanation. It doesn't matter how fast the computer is, it'll never
simulate in real-time a lump of reality bigger than the space it physically
occupies. Personally I doubt we'll reach that far, I
> > I think the word you are looking for is, ironically enough, realism. I
see
> > good reasons as to why certain things may never happen or may prove
> > prohibitively difficult. I've never said they won't happen, they may
well
> > do. But I'm not about to base my entire concept of game design around
> > something that might prove impossible. If you can't handle that, plonk
away,
>
> Then that's YOUR limitation you're setting for yourself as a so-called
"game designer". <shrug>
>
On the contrary. It's a limit I choose not to be bound by, namely realism.
L.J. Wischik
>It doesn't matter how fast the computer is, it'll never
>simulate in real-time a lump of reality bigger than the space it physically
>occupies.
I did my masters degree on computers that exist in something called
Malament-Hogarth spacetimes. (These are spacetimes allowed by general
relativity, but unlikely). They have the interesting property that a
computer inside one can simulate a lump of reality bigger than the space
it physically occupies, just so long as that space doesn't itself include
a Malament-Hogarth singularity. It was all fun and totally pointless and I
don't even know why I'm writing all this. Still, if anyone's interested,
the thesis is at www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ljw1004/philosophy/
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3896BF6E...@tnlc.com..
> Then ladders shouldn't be in FPSes if it detracts from deathmatch so much.
Give me a break...FPSes aren't JUST about deathmatch! It would be nice if
all the deathmatchers would actually evolve to the next level already...it's
just getting ridiculous how primitive deathmatch players choose to remain
compared to the evolution of the gaming industry as a whole. Pathetic...
>
Eep, does the word elitist mean anything to you? Are you aware that some of
us don't just play one kind of game and every so often like to just shoot
everything in sight?
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
L.J. Wischik <ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8777p4$ij3$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO <pe...@cowderoy.co.uk> wrote:
> >It doesn't matter how fast the computer is, it'll never
> >simulate in real-time a lump of reality bigger than the space it
physically
> >occupies.
>
> Malament-Hogarth spacetimes. (These are spacetimes allowed by general
> relativity, but unlikely). They have the interesting property that a
> computer inside one can simulate a lump of reality bigger than the space
> it physically occupies, just so long as that space doesn't itself include
> a Malament-Hogarth singularity. It was all fun and totally pointless and I
> don't even know why I'm writing all this. Still, if anyone's interested,
> the thesis is at www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ljw1004/philosophy/
>
I'll have a look over the weekend. It may well fly over my head seeing as
I'm still doing my A-levels, but I'll give it a shot. Needless to say, if
reality includes a Malament-Hogarth singularity in which to place the
computer we still can't simulate it :-)
Eep²
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:59:54 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >Brian Upton wrote:
> >
> >> We're just not interested in giving *you* what you want. Because no
> >> matter how cool you think it sounds, the "hyper-realistic" game you're
> >> describing would be deathly dull in practice.
> >
> >I really doubt you have a clear enough understanding of what I mean by
> > "hyper-realistic" to judge my opinion so harshly. Anyway, my point is tha
> >t 3D games are getting more and more realistic--in many different ways.
>
> Okay. Tell me what you do mean by a "hyper-realistic" game. A
> bullet-pointed feature list would be great.
That's just it, though. I've never stated a bullet-pointed feature list because I'm not REFERRING to specifics but am just stating generalities. You people (as in the newsgroupies who responded to my posts) are the ones who wanted specifics. The specifics are up to however much imagination and creativity you have in making things more realistic. Remember, all I stated was that games are getting MORE realistic. I intentionally left it vague and ambiguous.
> >[Explanation of why the holodeck is make-believe snipped]
> >
> >More pessimism...I won't even bother with a more thorough response be
> >cause you'll just respond with more pessimism.
>
> Wishing doesn't make it so, Eep. Just because someone invents a cool
> fantasy does not mean that it's inevitable that it will come to pass.
Optimism provides a better possibility of something happening than pessimism. Think negatively and nothing positive will probably ever happen; think positively and positive things are more likely to happen. It's all relative.
Eep²
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:13:21 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >
> >And as for the people who claim to work for Maxis, Red Storm, etc, so what? Th
> >is is an open forum and anyone can contribute. If you don't want to read my post
> >s, filter me. It's that simple.
>
> Are you suggesting that I'm lying about who I am? Jeez, Eep. Go to
> the Red Storm website and look under the corporate bios section. You
> can see a picture of me eating a yummy mini-donut at Siggraph '94. Or
> send me email at brian...@redstorm.com. It's in my sig. Or send
> email to webm...@redstorm.com and ask Mur if I'm real.
>
> I also can vouch for Jason Shankel. We've been in roundtables
> together at GDC and I've exchanged email with him before.
>
> On the other hand, all I know about you is a silly pseudonym.
>
> What's your real name, Eep?
> Where do you work?
> What are your credentials?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
Don't worry about it. :) I choose to remain anonymous and don't need to bring my "credentials" into this discussion. I'm simply partaking in an open form about game design. Not my fault if you overinflated game developer ego types can't accept that. :) Now if you'd care to get back to the original discussion, fine; otherwise meet my filter if you persist this thread.
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> schreef in berichtnieuws 3893875B...@tnlc.com...
> [...]
> >
> > Well, duh, yes, of course one shouldn't have to continually hold the
> action key down while on the ladder. The initial "grab" would just be to
> "latch" onto the ladder. Once "latched", the player character would stay
> "stuck" to it until pressing the action key again ("ungrab") and/or jumping
> off, like you suggested.
> >
> > Oh and interface consistency is relative. All games (FPSes aren't the only
> kind, you know) don't have the same interfaces. Why is it most 3rd-person
> action-adventure games don't have trouble with ladders? Perhaps FPSes could
> learn some things from 'em, eh? <chuckle>
> >
>
> In Rogue Spear, it does work like this. The key used to get on a ladder is
> the same you use to open doors and perform other actions. Still, climbing
> ladders still isn't too great in that game because you can't use weapons
> (not even a small pistol). So if an enemy waits below, your best bet is to
> jump down firing your SMG, and hope something hits him before he can react.
> When climbing ladders, things are even worse, because in the time you need
> to get to the top of the ladder and regain the use of your gun, any enemy up
> there will have plenty of time to kill you. The only way around this is to
> throw a few grenades up there before you start climbing. Too bad you can't
> shoot through walls and floors, that would certainly add some interesting
> strategies.
Too bad Red Storm didn't implement weapon firing while on ladders, eh? Lack of realism...
Anders Henriksson
>Then ladders shouldn't be in FPSes if it detracts from deathmatch so much.
>Give me a break...FPSes aren't JUST about deathmatch!
Right, that's why I said "it might work in a single-player game". Besides,
there are other forms of multiplayer games, but most share the need for
smooth action where one can concentrate on the action instead of on how
to perform basic movements.
>It would be nice if all the deathmatchers would actually evolve to the
>next level already...
I don't quite catch what you mean with this? FPSes and deathmatch change
just as any other game. People, however, may have favourite games which
may or may not be the latest on the market.
>it's just getting ridiculous how primitive deathmatch players choose
>to remain compared to the evolution of the gaming industry as a whole.
Primitive in what sense? Most players switch to newer games regularly
and try a few mods until they find what they like. Some gamers are very
conservative though, mostly because the feel of the games differ and if
you want to be your best, having to manage those differences just won't
cut it.
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >Keesia Wirt/Shawn Hanson wrote:
> >> Eep² wrote:
> >> > Jason Shankel wrote:
> >> > > Realism and good gameplay are not synonymous. Realism *can* enhance
> >> > > gameplay, by increasing the verisimilitude of the game experience,
> >> > > but true realism can be a burden.
>
> <Jasons examples of "realistic" effects not existing in Tomb Raider snipped:
> - Long time slumber/resting (6h+)
> - Hospitalization and realistic healing>
>
> >> > > But none of this realism would make Tomb Raider a better game.
>
> >> > How do YOU know? I think they would. While it may lose some mindless
> >> > action fans, I think hyperrealism would attract other fans. I'd LOVE
> >> > to have to play a game VERy realistically instead of all the
> >> > unbelievable bullshit in most games these days. I LIKE realistic
> >> > games--and the more realistic the better because it will feel more
> >> > "real" (hence, realism) and true instead of fake and false.
>
> I think that for a lot of gamers and for most of the prospective buyers
> of games such as Tomb Raider, as realistic as possible is not the goal.
> I think that what gamers want is for the gameplay to be _plausible_. I
> wouldn't care if the currents in a sewer system is not perfectly realistic,
> and I would rather see that the game developers focus on features which
> are relevant to gameplay.
Yes but you'd care if a sewer/river had no current at all. Realism is relative, meaning there are many degrees to it and how it can be modelled after in games. When Lara can jump into the river in TR3's India level and get pushed along, yet if she throws a flare or fires a grenade into the same river, both the flare and grenade sink straight down to the bottom without moving with the current, this is unrealistic.
The POINT about realism in games is believability. If I can't actually BELIEVE I'm in the game, surrounded by familiar realistic elements (physics, atmosphere--weather, nature, etc), I won't feel as immersed. Games are about escape, but if the game is TOO unrealistic--with no basis for believability--that escape doesn't really occur. And, I would probably bet, most people play games to escape reality, only to actually be confronted with a realistic gaming experience but with the difference that they are more in control of what happens to them unlike in the "real world".
> You made some good points regarding Tomb Raider on your web page. There
> are areas where increased computing power enables better games. More
> realistic handling of character animations is one such area. When walking
> or running the animations must match the movement of the figure. Weapons
> should be held in the hands, not hovering in front of them etc.
>
> But when realism gets in the way of gameplay lots of people will shun
> it. It doesn't have to be irrelevant to be shunned, it just has to be
> a disadvantage. In quake2 for instance, most multiplayer gamers will
> crank up their gamma settings until the screen is glaring just to get
> an edge on the competition. This ruins the looks of the game, but it
> makes them perform better so they trade away realism hands down.
Yet another FPS example. Fine, leave realism out of FPSes--I don't care since I rarely, if ever, play them anyway (Half-Life was an exception). But for action-adventure, RTS, flight sims, adventure, etc, etc, etc games, realism is an intricate part of the gameplay. For some people, playing the game is ALL about feeling immerse in a believable, realistic game world/environment. And as more and more 3D games come out, and as they become more and more multiplayer and on-line only (Ultima Onling, EverQuest, Active Worlds, etc, etc, etc), realism will be even MORE important to game design and gameplay. It's already happening...
> >There are already plenty of gamers who criticise realism in games
> >today. AI, physics, locations, character motivation, plot, etc, etc,
> >etc--it's all here being criticized already. I doubt game developers
> >will ALWAYS get reality correct in games, but I think it's a very
> >challengable, worthy goal to reach for: reality is far more
> >interesting to model than fantasy. Theoretical physics is proving
> >that every day.
>
> AI, character motivation, and plots most likely won't ever become
> realistic. Simulating human intelligence without cutting corners
> big time requires knowledge and computing power not likely to emerge
> in the foreseeable future (say 10-20 years). Motivation and plots
> are not possible to be classified as realistic or not. They may or
> may not depend on real world things, but that is probably not
> relevant. Once again, the keyword is not real but _plausible_.
> For AI this means characters who give reasonable response and
> perform reasonable actions without having to cheat by using secret
> information or massive parallell actions not possible for humans.
Heh, I'm sure people said this way back before 3D games were even conceived. Yet just look at the kinds of games we have today we didn't even have a measly 10 years ago (which is a good chunk of time in the computer industry). What's inconceivable today may be old news tomorrow. That's the nature of this industry...and to close your mind off to the possibilities is a good way to secure your death in the computing industry. Innovate, evolve, and progress...or stagnate and die off. The choice is yours. Either way, 3D games WILL get more realistic and they WILL progress without close-minded people or not. It's already happening. I'm simply stating the obvious (like I do with the "x is relative" bit). Sometimes people need the obvious stated so they wake up and realize: "Holy shit; you're right! Perhaps I should get my head stuck outta my ass and get synched up with what's really going on!
> Physics modelling and object handling stand better chances to
> be implemented, though.
>
> >> > > In the case of the Sims, there are numerous aspects of "real
> >> > > life" that that team intentionally left out of the product.
> >> > > Not because they'd be too hard to simulate, but because they
> >> > > would not be fun and would not contribute to the essential
> >> > > economies of the game.
>
> >> > How do you know? Anything designed well can contribute to
> >> > a game's essential economy(ies).
>
> I find this argument rather strange. Are you implying that anything
> could be of value to any game if designed well?
Of course. Why not? What's valuable to me may be invaluable to you--and vice versa. It's all relative.
> If not, then what
> is your point? It's reasonable to assume that the designers had a
> walkthrough of possible features and decided on a set which seemed
> possible and relevant.
>
> For instance, in a city simulation, traffic jams seem reasonable to
> include but the effect of rainfall on the capacity of water power
> plants is not worthwhile IMO. Neither is micromanagement such as
> running nuclear plants safely and making sure your power plants are
> shut down properly in case your power grid fails.
It really depends on the type of game, doesn't it? I bet cities would actually find such simulations helpful in training, for example. Who hasn't been inspired to become a mayor after playing SimCity? I LOVE simulation games because they usually give me the chance to do things I wouldn't normally be able to do in the "real world".
> >> > > Realism is not the ultimate goal of design. Suspension of
> >> > > disbelief is. When you watch a Shwartzenegger movie, you
> >> > > *expect* to see cartoon violence. That suspension of
> >> > > disbelief enhances the narrative.
>
> This is a very good point, IMO.
Sorry, but seeing the aliens in Half-Life basically killed my belief suspension. Thief's zombies, burricks, and fire elementals did it too. Tomb Raider's silly plots kill it for me. Drakan...well, it's already a fantasy game so I'm already in a different mindset when approaching it anyway, but it at least seems fairly believable and follows already-established fantasy genre settings for the most part. Outcast was mostly believable since it took place on an alien world and had a very intricate plot which continually backed everything up.
> >> > I say more realism is the key and 3D games are getting more
> >> > and more realistic all the time. It's already happening whether
> >> > you'd like to admit it or not. :)
>
> >> I disagree. 3D games are just getting better at depicting those
> >> selective bits of reality that they choose to portray [light,
> >> physics, etc.]. They aren't becoming more "real" any more than
> >> better film stock made movies more "real."
>
> >How ironic that just above you elaborated on relativity yet you
> >failed to apply it in this context. Those "selective bits of
> >reality" are where "3D games are just getting better at depicting"
> >them. Hence, relative reality.
>
> You have a very peculiar way of using the realism concept which I
> find a bit confusing. Above you use better rendering possibilities
> (which might be used to increase realism) as a reason why including
> more real life elements in the games is The Future of gaming.
> While some real world elements are good to simulate, many may not
> be. Realism for it's own sake is a good research topic but it's
> not a good base for a game.
<chuckle> Tell that to all the flight sims, city/civilization-builders (SimCity, Civilization, Caesar 3, Pharaoh, etc), and any other game which uses realism as a basis to expand on (which is a LOT of games like the 2D adventures from the 80s and 90s, 3D action-adventures, action, etc, etc, etc). I shouldn't even have to expand on this any further for you to realise most games begin with a good grounding dosage of reality and then throw in increasingly unrealistic elements to keep things "interesting" (mostly for the seemingly majority of mindless gamers game publishers seem to market towards who have short attention spans and trigger happy fingers).
> >But I still can argue that more and more 3D games I read about are
> >becoming based on more realistic things. SWAT teams, undercover cops,
> >gangsters, military platoons/squads (whatever) and individual soldiers,
> >thievery--see a pattern yet?
>
> This is indeed a trend, both in new games and in aftermarket modifications
> for existing games such as Half-Life and Quake. But there are still a
> lot of tradeoffs between realism and gameplay, and most FPS gamers are
> not interested i hyperrealism.
Heh, then why is it id's Quake 3 is basically nothing more than a demo to show off their latest 3D engine (which development of which is all ABOUT making things more realistic) than an actual game? Puhleaze...
> A typical example is fire fights in Action Quake 2. Suppose you have only
> a pistol and the enemy has a machine pistol. The reasonable real world
> response is to run far away and hide. Such behavior is however despised
> of by most players as it keeps many of the already dead players waiting
> for the next round to begin. AQ2s realistic damage system is tolerated
> and appreciated only because rounds end quickly. Defensive and careful
> playing is not fun to watch, just like drying paint ain't very fun either.
Note that not everyone plays FPSes for mindless shooting; some actually like to THINK and PLAN their strategy. Attempt to expand out of the narrow-minded blow-everything-away-on-the-screen-because-I-can't-think-of-what-to-do-otherwise mentality of most FPSes. Evolve please.
snark^
warbled on about "Re: ladders" in alt.games.tombraider <<=
> In Rogue Spear, it does work like this. The key used to get on a ladder is
> the same you use to open doors and perform other actions. Still, climbing
> ladders still isn't too great in that game because you can't use weapons
> (not even a small pistol). So if an enemy waits below, your best bet is to
> jump down firing your SMG, and hope something hits him before he can react.
> When climbing ladders, things are even worse, because in the time you need
> to get to the top of the ladder and regain the use of your gun, any enemy up
> there will have plenty of time to kill you. The only way around this is to
> throw a few grenades up there before you start climbing. Too bad you can't
> shoot through walls and floors, that would certainly add some interesting
> strategies.
Counterstrike does have the player able to use weapons on the ladders, you
only have to walk into them to start climbing too - backwards, forwards,
sidestepping, it just doesn't matter. I've thought to myself, 'This is a
little unrealistic', a dozen times or more while climbing a ladder and
blazing away with the extremely large H&K G3... damn glad to have it in
there though. Things like you've mentioned with R6 above have to be
countered by teamwork - having a teamate cover you while you climb, but then
getting someone to back you up on a public server when they're all intent on
reducing it to a DM... well...
CS does allow you to shoot through crates, walls and doors - each weapon has
a penetration factor depending mainly on the round it fires, but with some
variation between the guns (MP5=low, FN Para=very high). This is somewhat
realistic and rather fun to blat people through thin walls - particularly
those in your blind spots on either side of doors you have to enter and so
on... :)
--
snark^ snark(at)
ICQ No.: 1471203 paradise(dot)net(dot)nz
JEP
> Brian Upton wrote:
<<<snipped liberally for your reading pleasure>>>
> > Wishing doesn't make it so, Eep. Just because someone invents a cool
> > fantasy does not mean that it's inevitable that it will come to pass.
Wishing and dreaming about things is what has propelled humans forward
since the beginning of time. Wishing *can* make it so since it enables
people to think creatively and take leaps of faith to pursue their
interests and desires.
If it wasn't for the "wish" to make a better video game, we would never
have TR or any other modern immersive video game. We'd all still be
staring deeply at the Pong screen on an old Zenith console set.
Don't downplay the importance of imagination and fantasy...they serve as
a scratch pad for the human mind.
Gerry Quinn
>
>> Brian Upton wrote:
>
><<<snipped liberally for your reading pleasure>>>
>
>> > Wishing doesn't make it so, Eep. Just because someone invents a cool
>> > fantasy does not mean that it's inevitable that it will come to pass.
>
>
>Wishing and dreaming about things is what has propelled humans forward
>since the beginning of time. Wishing *can* make it so since it enables
>people to think creatively and take leaps of faith to pursue their
>interests and desires.
>
>If it wasn't for the "wish" to make a better video game, we would never
>have TR or any other modern immersive video game. We'd all still be
>staring deeply at the Pong screen on an old Zenith console set.
>
TR was made by people who knew both the capabilities and the limitations
of the technology, and their own abilities. They pushed the envelope.
They did not pretend the envelope didn't exist.
Maybe if we all express the wish that eep will make some attempt to
separate the will-bes from the might-bes and the could-never-bes, it
will happen. But I won't hold my breath...
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzle / Strategy Games and Kaleidoscope for Windows
Download evaluation versions free, no time limits
Try our new adware game "Skeet Shooting"
Grant Hooper
Thatcher Ulrich
> Optimism provides a better possibility of something happening than pessimism. Think negatively and nothing positive will probably ever happen; think positively and positive things are more likely to happen. It's all relative.
On the other hand, if you think pessimistically, you're more likely to be
pleasantly surprised...
--
Thatcher Ulrich
http://www.tulrich.com
Peter Cowderoy/PSYCHO
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:38976B0A...@tnlc.com...
> Optimism provides a better possibility of something happening than
pessimism. Think negatively and nothing positive will probably ever happen;
think positively and positive things are more likely to happen.
>
No. It's not how likely you consider things to be, or whether you're
optimistic or pessimistic that counts. It's whether you're willing to do the
research. I'm not willing to do large amounts of research within a
commercial game project, statistically it's looking to throw away large
amounts of money and a significant part of my life. If you want to pay me to
do R&D work, that's a different matter.
Blarg
It had all the elements of Doom and Tombraider, but without all the
visual sophistication (though it didn't look bad). It was a
first-person shoot 'em up with puzzles galore, AND unlike Tombraider,
the player's character grew stronger with each triumph over evil.
As far as ultra-realism goes, I've played many games wherein the player
had to eat and drink or die, and it became a pain in the ass. What
about flossing? Should the player develop toothaches? How about
heartburn or depression? Maybe Lara should have her period, and get
killed because she had cramps.
Computer games are escapes, therein lies their appeal.
Whoops, gotta go.
Gerry Quinn
>You guys ever play "Dungeonmaster" on the Atari ST (circa 1980)?
>It had all the elements of Doom and Tombraider, but without all the
>visual sophistication (though it didn't look bad). It was a
>first-person shoot 'em up with puzzles galore, AND unlike Tombraider,
>the player's character grew stronger with each triumph over evil.
In Dungeon Master you did have to eat and drink, but in this game it was
actually handled well for once.
A classic - one of the all-time great CRPGs. And no wimpy auto-map!
>As far as ultra-realism goes, I've played many games wherein the player
>had to eat and drink or die, and it became a pain in the ass. What
>about flossing? Should the player develop toothaches? How about
>heartburn or depression? Maybe Lara should have her period, and get
>killed because she had cramps.
>
It should depend on the 'gore' setting.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzle / Strategy Games and Kaleidoscope for Windows
Download evaluation versions free, no time limits
Try our new adware game "Skeet Shooting"
>Computer games are escapes, therein lies their appeal.
>
>Whoops, gotta go.
Markus Mokkanen
>You guys ever play "Dungeonmaster" on the Atari ST (circa 1980)?
>It had all the elements of Doom and Tombraider, but without all the
>visual sophistication (though it didn't look bad). It was a
>first-person shoot 'em up with puzzles galore, AND unlike Tombraider,
It was a semi-realtime RPG, actually.
Larry
>Optimism provides a better possibility of something happening than
pessimism. Think negatively and nothing positive will probably ever happen;
relative.
Optimism is all very well, but blind optimism in the face of scientific
advice is ignorance, I'm afraid. The transporters in Star Trek are all very
well, but all the energy involved has to come from somewhere - if you take
E=mc^2, and work out that the energy associated even with a 70 kilogram
person is 7000 * 300,000,000 Joules (approximately three hundred thousand
million joules) would have to be stored or dissipated somehow, it just isn't
feasible *as far as we now know*. When there is even a single piece of
scientific evidence that this might be possible at some point in the remote
future, I might be optimistic that it could be realised. However, despite
the theory of relativity, not all things are relative. Some limits are
hard-coded into the universe, and all the talk of relativity just won't make
them go away. Terminal velocity of objects falling in an air atmosphere, the
refractive index of a normal pane of glass, the permitivity of free space,
the wavelength of red light... Why not just accept that some things are
unchangeable, and will remain so?
--
Larry
--
Loren Petrich
So it could only be called a big fat flop?
I'll probably never see it on my preferred computer hardware, unless
I upgrade it to some that can emulate Intel-x86 instructions fast
enough :-)
One thing I considered bizarre was their claim that they would not
be needing hardware acceleration. I know what's involved in 3D
graphics, and that claim is just plain hokey.
In article <3895E4F1...@theinspiracy.NOSPAM.com>, Noah Falstein
<n...@theinspiracy.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> Eep² wrote:
> > I suggest you, and others who feel Trespasser was an absolute failure,
> > read it and gain a more balanced perspective about Trespasser.
> Thanks, I have read the article. But please consider that others may know
> more about what happened than can be gleaned by an article written for
> Gamasutra. I was an executive producer at Dreamworks when Trespasser was
> begun and I saw first-hand the swath it cut through the company. Sure, the
> format of the post-mortems in Game Developer and Gamasutra includes "lessons
> learned" and puts a positive light on things. Did people learn from it and
> will they do better in the future? Quite probably. Are they still working
> for Dreamworks? With a few exceptions (mostly people who knew better in the
> first place), no. Does anyone in the company think those lessons were worth
> losing millions of
> dollars? If so, they're keeping very quiet about it.
--
Loren Petrich
pet...@netcom.com
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
Eep²
Change is relative. :) Terminal velocity of falling objects in an air atmosphere is relative to the objects, gravity, air atmosphere, all the particles/atoms/molecules that make UP these things, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention relative to our PERCEPTION of these events. When I refer to relativity I am not even explicitly talking about Einstein's theory or whatever, but just of things being relative in general: scientifically, physically, mentally, psychologically, emotionally--whateverally. :)
Erik Max Francis
> Change is relative. :) Terminal velocity of falling objects in an air
> atmosphere is relative to the objects, gravity, air atmosphere, all
> the particles/atoms/molecules that make UP these things, etc, etc,
> etc. Not to mention relative to our PERCEPTION of these events. When I
> refer to relativity I am not even explicitly talking about Einstein's
> theory or whatever, but just of things being relative in general:
> scientifically, physically, mentally, psychologically,
> emotionally--whateverally. :)
Whenever you invoke the word _relative_, you do so in a vain attempt to
win an argument by backpedalling. Your invocation of it is consistently
a sign that you have lost the argument and do not know how to admit that
to yourself.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 964.30 Ms pL | 329 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__
/ \ I like young girls. Their stories are shorter.
\__/ Thomas McGuane
Eep²
> Eep² wrote:
>
> > Change is relative. :) Terminal velocity of falling objects in an air
> > atmosphere is relative to the objects, gravity, air atmosphere, all
> > the particles/atoms/molecules that make UP these things, etc, etc,
> > etc. Not to mention relative to our PERCEPTION of these events. When I
> > refer to relativity I am not even explicitly talking about Einstein's
> > theory or whatever, but just of things being relative in general:
> > scientifically, physically, mentally, psychologically,
> > emotionally--whateverally. :)
>
> Whenever you invoke the word _relative_, you do so in a vain attempt to
> win an argument by backpedalling. Your invocation of it is consistently
> a sign that you have lost the argument and do not know how to admit that
> to yourself.
Hardly. I never claimed I was arguing in the first place so how can I lose an arguement I never acknowledged existance of? Argumentation is relative. Loss is relative. It's ALL relative. :) Next...
Erik Max Francis
> Hardly. I never claimed I was arguing in the first place so how can I
> lose an arguement I never acknowledged existance of? Argumentation is
> relative. Loss is relative. It's ALL relative. :) Next...
I rest my case.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 964.87 Ms pL | 329 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__
/ \ All the gods are dead except the god of war.
\__/ Eldridge Cleaver
Jason Shankel
Eep² wrote:
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> > Whenever you invoke the word _relative_, you do so in a vain attempt to
> > win an argument by backpedalling. Your invocation of it is consistently
> > a sign that you have lost the argument and do not know how to admit that
> > to yourself.
>
> Hardly. I never claimed I was arguing in the first place so how can I lose an arguement I never acknowledged existance of? Argumentation is relative. Loss is relative. It's ALL relative. :) Next...
Now *that's* a thing a beauty, in a Michael Palin/John Cleese sort of way.
And to think, I was *this* close to terminating this thread by invoking a
certain mid-20th century mass-murdering German military dictator.
And why was this thread cross-posted to sci.physics.relativity? Haven't
those people suffered enough?
Happy Monday, all.
--
Jason Shankel
Maxis/EA
s h a n k e l
at
p o b o x . c o m
Enjoy smooth, refreshing OpenTrek at http://www.pobox.com/~shankel/opentrek.html
Eep²
> Eep² wrote:
>
> > Erik Max Francis wrote:
> >
> > > Whenever you invoke the word _relative_, you do so in a vain attempt to
> > > win an argument by backpedalling. Your invocation of it is consistently
> > > a sign that you have lost the argument and do not know how to admit that
> > > to yourself.
> >
> > Hardly. I never claimed I was arguing in the first place so how can I lose an arguement I never acknowledged existance of? Argumentation is relative. Loss is relative. It's ALL relative. :) Next...
>
> Now *that's* a thing a beauty, in a Michael Palin/John Cleese sort of way.
>
> And to think, I was *this* close to terminating this thread by invoking a
> certain mid-20th century mass-murdering German military dictator.
>
> And why was this thread cross-posted to sci.physics.relativity? Haven't
> those people suffered enough?
>
> Happy Monday, all.
Because, in some relative way, this post is related to that newsgroup. Relativity's spiffy that way! :)
Erik Max Francis
> Because, in some relative way, this post is related to that newsgroup.
> Relativity's spiffy that way! :)
Do not insult physicists by suggesting that the way use the word
_relativity_ (namely, to backpedal) has anything at all to do with the
way that physicists use it.
--
Erik Max Francis | email m...@alcyone.com | icq 16063900 | q3a Product
Alcyone Systems | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 964.214 Ms p.L. | 327 days left | &tSftDotIotE
__
/ \ That which is resisted persists.
\__/ Camden Benares
Eep²
> Eep² wrote:
>
> > Because, in some relative way, this post is related to that newsgroup.
> > Relativity's spiffy that way! :)
>
> Do not insult physicists by suggesting that the way use the word
> _relativity_ (namely, to backpedal) has anything at all to do with the
> way that physicists use it.
Ah but in some relative way, it does. :) It's all relative, you see (or perhaps you don't?). :o Sad...