Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Well, I just created a detailed reply and my browser crashed. Maybe the Spirit of GameDev is trying to tell me not to post so much. o_O

Oh, I really hate that! That's why I type up all of my responses in WordPad these days -- too many times has the browser crash allowed intellectual iniquity to prevail. :)

Quote:

Anyway, Ranger, I'm glad that you're looking at things in a flexible way,

I do try.

Quote:

but let me just make this point on the perfect game: Consider how big the codebase is going to have to be. The average game, AFAIK (sorry, can't source this, something I've just heard), is somewhere between 150k - 300k lines of code minimum.

That sounds entirely reasonable. I don't normally have cause to contest your figures, estimated or not.

Quote:

The average full time programmer creates 50 - 100 good lines of code a day (that is, tested, debugged, proper failsafes, no reengineering).

Sometimes I beat that hands down, but other days I have to study or whatever. So as an average, ok fine.

Quote:

So if this isn't your day job and you don't like the economic realities here,

No, it's not, and no I don't.

Quote:

how long will it take you to make it yourself? I'm estimating 15 to 20 years, because your codebase is going to be bigger.

Assuming my codebase is going to be bigger (which I would take as complimentary as long as it all works properly), then yes, 12 to 15 years by myself sounds reasonable. Aside from the fact that I would be ok with devoting that much time to one game, I still won't end up taking even 12 years to finish. Primarily, this is because I am not working on this project alone. I am lucky enough to be working with two other like-minded and very talented programmers. We are all working on separate parts of the code simultaneously, so even if you take the 15 year estimate and divide by 3, you only get 5 years. I can live with 5 years. Making a game like this is very important to me. It's more of a calling than an occupational preference.

Quote:

Unless you're a trust fund kid, you're going to find that either you can't do the game in any reasonable time frame, or you're going to have to compromise quality or quantity to get it done.

No, I'm not a trust fund kid, thank God. I wouldn't want that burden. "Coding hungry" keeps you sharp and more willing to be flexible. But compromise quality or quantity? I highly doubt it. Quantity maybe, if need be, but never quality. That's the whole point in the first place.

~Ranger Meldon~ M.M. .:

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster One advantage of a reputation system is for an MMORPG where there are multiple sides. If you set up a good NPC army for each side, a character with the proper reputation can either walk though the area and be ignored, attacked or given command of the soldiers. -Drethron

Yes, the possibilities are almost limitless when there is a lack of cynicism and sufficient imagination is used.

~Ranger Meldon~ M.M. .:

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Quote: Original post by Nytehauq I find it hard to believe that you could find the exact same magical item as someone else and have it fit both people in reality Dude, I think you're confused. In "reality", that is "in real life", I don't think I've ever seen a "magical" item. If we're agreed that this is a "magical" item, then I fail to see any reason it shouldn't fit. I've never heard anyone seriously complain that the one ring fit both Sauron's polish sausage finger and Frodo's pencil finger.

This is not a good example. The One Ring of Power was an exquisitely, unimaginably powerful unique magic item (as the words "One" and "Power" would suggest even if you know nothing about Tolkien's world). Of course it could have been capable of altering its size to accomodate the wearer! No one's complaining because it made sense given what we knew about the ring. There are no other indications anywhere in Lord of the Rings, as books or movies, to indicate or imply that any other magic items have that ability. Being able to adjust to the dimensions of the wearer should be a very special property not possessed by most magic items.

~Ranger Meldon~ M.M. .:

I've said it in other threads, but realism can ruin games. You have to look at everything and ask, "What would be most fun?". If that "fun" thing happens to be realistic, so be it, but don't sacrifice fun for realism.

Games in and of themselves aren't even realistic.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Quote: Original post by Ranger Meldon Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster Quote: Original post by Nytehauq I find it hard to believe that you could find the exact same magical item as someone else and have it fit both people in reality Dude, I think you're confused. In "reality", that is "in real life", I don't think I've ever seen a "magical" item. If we're agreed that this is a "magical" item, then I fail to see any reason it shouldn't fit. I've never heard anyone seriously complain that the one ring fit both Sauron's polish sausage finger and Frodo's pencil finger. This is not a good example. The One Ring of Power was an exquisitely, unimaginably powerful unique magic item (as the words "One" and "Power" would suggest even if you know nothing about Tolkien's world). Of course it could have been capable of altering its size to accomodate the wearer! No one's complaining because it made sense given what we knew about the ring. There are no other indications anywhere in Lord of the Rings, as books or movies, to indicate or imply that any other magic items have that ability. Being able to adjust to the dimensions of the wearer should be a very special property not possessed by most magic items. ~Ranger Meldon~ M.M. .: Why shouldn't all magical items have the ability to accomodate the wearer? I see nothing about that that would contradict anything you've found in real life.

If all magic items were to have this quality, there would need to be an explanation. The explanation would only have to agree with reality if it affected a part of the game that was based in reality. However, seeing as there are no 'magical' items in reality, it would only have to be conceptually valid and rational. Point being, there should still be a rational explanation. Besides, the magical items analogy was used to express the absurdity of having magical items in a one-size fit all category while still putting limitations on armor based on class. Furthermore, the "Realism in games" argument has been moved to the "Why there is Realism" thread, out of respect for Ranger Meldon's original intentions for this thread.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Why shouldn't all magical items have the ability to accomodate the wearer? I see nothing about that that would contradict anything you've found in real life.

I mean no offense to this poster, but I really wish that you would start logging in so I can tell who I'm responding to. Some of you, like the person who typed the above quote, are asking some really thought-provoking questions. It's a shame I have to do the conversational equivalent of whisper my answers to you around a corner.

At any rate, I know it seems like there is no immediate answer to the logical assertion that we don't know how magic items would act in general, because we don't have magic items in real life. However, I think I have a valid answer to this that should cover most cases:

Magic items don't make themselves. Someone has to craft them, and devote significant time and energy (both magical and mundane) in the process. This is a big part of what makes magic items so special and expensive. Non-magical items, as we all know, do not have the ability to resize to custom-fit the wearer. This means that such a property would have to be specifically imbued into a magic item at the time that it is being made magical. Now, from this follow two important corollaries.

First, every change requires an input of energy to the system being changed. This would follow even if magic is involved, because it's still magical energy being used. If you balk at this, then still, if nothing else, more focus would be required on the part of the magician in order to ensure that this additional property would become manifest along with the other desired characteristics. This means that it would take more energy (mental or magical or both) to imbue a magic item with the ability to change sizes than it would to make a magic item without this property.

This ties in with the second corollary, which is that people are generally selfish. People with power are usually especially selfish or avaricious and desire to retain their power. It stands to reason that the people with the most power are going to be making the most powerful magic items, and perhaps also the greatest percentage of magic items in the gameworld. Therefore, if you are such a person, and you are making a magic item, you're not going to want to invest more energy into making a specific magic item than you have to. Also, you won't want to make it easy for someone to kill you, take your magic item, and use it as their own, unless you have a very good reason to disregard this possibility. At the very least, you're not going to want to make a magic item that can be taken away from you and easily donned in order to be used against you. If anything, it would probably be more likely that most magic items would be designed to never fit someone unless they were the original caster or his/her blood relatives.

Therefore, according to these reasons, magic items would not be prevalent that adjust themselves to the size of the wearer. Could such items exist? Certainly. Could the player character even get to make items with such a property? Sure. But would it be normal to find such items? No way! Remember human nature, regardless of the "physics" of magic.

Now I suppose in your own game world you could make things such that magic somehow "knows" when the caster would want an item to adjust its size, and when the caster doesn't want that property. You could make magic so that it doesn't require any extra energy or concentration effort in order to add this extra resizing ability. But it seems like that would end up being more unrealistic and fuzzy than the concept of magic items itself.

~Ranger Meldon~ M.M. .:

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster When was it about identifying aspects of real life and trying to describe those aspects with source code? It's a game; I thought it was just about being fun. Maybe you, personally, cannot have fun unless there's not a single unrealistic aspect. When I want 100% realism, I, personally, step outside. I've, personally, never cared if a game was realistic so long as it was fun. And, let's be honest, the omniscient NPC never reminded me, personally, that I was playing a game. And, believe me, I do my share of role playing in games. I still play Fallout 2, taking on different roles (my favorite so far is the networking/"My friends are my strength" character, that was fun).

To start off with, see my previous post about me wishing you anonymous posters would log in properly when you're going to post something thought-provoking. :)
That having been said, I want to point out that I never mentioned 100% realism. Now, on the off chance that I never specifically said anything to the contrary either, I will now: I do not believe in having 100% realism in games! I've said in a different thread (the one that spawned the idea for this thread) that if I wanted sheer realism, I'd hit myself over the head with a frying pan. It's a delicate balance between immersive realism and losing fun. So long as adding more realism doesn't detract from the fun of a game, it can't help but increase the immersiveness and ability of the player to suspend disbelief, which is especially important in an FPS RPG.

Secondly, I'm sorry if you don't think realism can improve the fun of a game. I'm sorry if you don't see how it can make a game more immersive to have numerous elements of realism that make it easier for the player's real-life brain to identify with the gameworld. But yes, not having enough realism definitely does detract from the fun of a game for me, especially if I know that the addition of the desired realism would not detract from the fun of other parts of the game. It just makes the game seem as though the developers skimped when they didn't have to, especially when the facets of realism are small, like being able to look down and see your character's own feet. Maybe I'm just choosier about my games than you are. But that's ok. That's why I'm making my own game, instead of trying to be satisfied with what everyone else has had to offer so far.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster As for your reputation system, I think a much simpler solution would be indistinguishable to the player.

Perhaps if you were the player, but not me. I would not have thought of all this if I hadn't already noticed it lacking in today's FPS RPG games. The beauty of such a dynamic and variegated reputation system as the one I proposed is that the more content you add to the game, and the more you relate that content to specific character types and group affiliations, the better and more distinguishable it gets. That's rare to be able to add a game subsystem that continues to add role-playing value even after you're done designing it, and have moved on to adding content in other areas.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Check if witnesses exist/were possible. If so, record the time and location of the event. Now, any time something depends on knowledge of the event, check "(x - x_0) - v(t - t_0)" (x is current location, x_0 is location of event, v is the speed at which information travels, t is the current time, t_0 is the time of event). If negative, they know about it. You could improve it by giving more significant events a larger v, using something other than a linear regression, etc.

This is actually good stuff and I do not object to it. It does not take into account the effect that different kinds of news would have on different factions within the gameworld, but it seems like it could be reasonably modified to do so. It also does not allow the player character him/herself to be a communication vector, but once again, I suppose that with a little imagination, you could tack this on to your basic premise.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster If you don't like that this is an approximation, keep two things in mind:

No, I don't dislike approximations. Approximations = speed! Just so long as the approximations are reasonably close. Calculus is almost all about making approximations.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster 1) My background is in physics where approximations to reality are key. The simplest model that works is used. Classical approximations (e.g. Newtonian mechanics) are still used in modern research.

Good, I'm glad to see we don't disagree on this, then.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster 2) If you weren't told it was an approximation, I really doubt you'd find out.

I agree. It's pointless to split hairs in a game when you're the only person (as the developer) that will ever get to see the specifics of the hair-splitting, or the slight variations from "absolutely true" values.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Reminds me of people who are all like (re: electric guitar) "Wow, that was great, what kind of tubes do you use?" "I don't, it's solid state." "Oh, yeah, it was kind of sterile." Maybe you'd feel cheated if you found out it's an approximation, but why, so long as it behaves the same in all important aspects?

Exactly. As was said earlier in this thread, by Nytehauq I believe, it's about gameworld physics consistency and not always about strict adherence to real life, especially as it would interfere with fun. It's like, go ahead and make up a few, more fun rules from out of thin air. But once you do, use those rules consistently and always. Don't screw with the player's mind.

Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq Furthermore, the "Realism in games" argument has been moved to the "Why there is Realism" thread, out of respect for Ranger Meldon's original intentions for this thread.

For the love of God, thank you! If I have to say "Realism as long as it doesn't interfere with fun" one more time, I might have an aneurism. And yes, as Nytehauq says, I intended for this thread to discuss things we don't like about RPGs and FPS RPGs. I did not intend to end up defending my preferences for realism, especially since discussions of realism should go in a thread entitled "What have we loved the most about RPGs?" Now obviously, not everyone thinks that, but I do, and I would certainly post that in that thread.
You know, that's a good idea. I think I'm going to start that up soon, if someone doesn't beat me to it.

~Ranger Meldon~ M.M. .:

[Edited by - Ranger Meldon on July 7, 2005 7:34:35 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller I've said it in other threads, but realism can ruin games. You have to look at everything and ask, "What would be most fun?". If that "fun" thing happens to be realistic, so be it, but don't sacrifice fun for realism.

I wholeheartedly concur. As a parting shot, I might add that we also have to be aware of what will be fun long-term (even if it might seem irritating at first), which can often relate to what would or would not be more realistic. Personally, I think eating icecream is fun, at least until I'm able to eat nothing but icecream for a week straight.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller Games in and of themselves aren't even realistic.

Only the ones that we have made not to be so. ;) There are many games that derive fun from conflicting aspects of reality.

~Ranger Meldon~ M.M. .:

Wow, there's been heaps of activity on this thread while it was day over the other side of the Pacific!

Just a quick clarification of my point, and I think was also the point of makeshiftwings and Wavinator:

Quote:

Original post by Ranger Meldon Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid I agree with makeshiftwings here, Ranger Meldon. Unless you are making the spread of information an important part of your RPG, this would be too much of a hassle to implement for a minimal gameplay gain. I am making this an important part of my RPG. In my opinion, this should be a part of any good FPS RPG. One day it will be, and not just for my game.

If you are going to make this an important part of your game, then that's fine. It's a good gameplay dynamic if implemented well, and implemented deep (as in a crucial part of your game design). However, given your original list of huge amibitious improvments to the state of RPGs today, this ties into another point that I made in that post:

Quote:

Quote: While I agree there are areas to be improved in RPGs (I summarised my main annoyances at the top of this thread), all these AI and physics models are just overkill for the experiences, from a 'cost of implementation' versus 'gameplay payoff' point of view. When did all this stop being fun? When did it stop being enjoyable to identify aspects of real life and to try to describe those aspects with source code as they relate to our games?

It's not that this idea isn't fun; it is fun, and would be great if RPGs included in more often. What has to be decided is that taking the time to implement this would make your game more fun than if you spent that time implementing something else. Think of it a bit like spending money on upgrading your computer to make gaming more enjoyable; it's like making the tradeoff between spending your $200 on a new graphics card or a new memory stick.

One of the hardest tasks a game designer has to do when designing their game is to set priorities. If I was you I'd make three lists of game design ideas. List A can be the game design elements that are simply essential to enjoying your game. List B would be the design elements that are highly desirable, and would add a lot to the game, but if forced you could (regrettable) do without. List C would the design elements that think would be cool and you want to implement if you find the time.

Then, if you actually want to implement the game, throw out List C immediately. And you'll most likely have to throw out List B as well.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Hmm... The one thing that bothers me most is a lack of balance between story and gameplay. I'm mostly thinking FF style RPGs when I say this. For instance, I remembered liking FFIX's ability system, so I started a new game. Wow... so much time spent in unskippable cutscenes, so much time spent running around without a fight in sight, so much time before the first save point. Eventually, I found the stamina to slog through that, but then it was even longer before there was enough equipment to even start playing the abilities game. That is, it took a long time to get to an integral part of the gameplay experience. This works the other way, too. I love Setzer's storyline in FFVI. I love the flashbacks as you wander the tomb, but these battles keep getting in the way.

Ok, I'm sorry I haven't read the entire thread but that comment just REALLY, REALLY made me want to reply (not in a negative way). I just had this brilliant idea - like, say in the middle of the game you learned how to use a skill that you would use extensively through the rest of the game (on consoles, maybe a combination of buttons or something). Beginners could never figure this skill out (or even if they did, how to use it). It would not be tied to your character. In the beginning of the game, there could be 'shortcuts' to the 'actual game', that are activated by this skill/key combo. That would allow experienced players to skip the hassle and get straight to the playing.

What do you think?

Also, on the subject of unique spells, who here has played Golden Sun? BEST GBA RPG EVER (aside from Zelda of course, but the latest Zeldas aren't that good if you ask me). It had unique non-combat spells (push, lift, 'rain' (which could be used in combat IIRC), etc.) that you used to manipulate the terrain to solve puzzles. I don't think there was enough of that, but it was a great unique idea IMHO.

Also, Jedi Academy. The Force used in Jedi Academy is both combat and non-combat, as when you're playing in levels with a lot of pits, you can Force pull and push enemies into them and stuff. But there's not enough of Force pushing and pulling environment objects.

So there, my rant is over. My .02. Cheers!