Jashin on 23/4/2008 at 01:29
Quote Posted by Matthew
What are our alternatives, incidentally?
In StarCraft (as in many RTS/RPG), devs have the tendency to place a few buildings with a few units in between and call that a "town." Right, if that's a town then what's a camp? It's a matter of the world being designed around a game rather than a game designed around the world.
In other words, where does it sit on the scale of abstraction?
Few years back, a StarCraft community mapper created a 256x256 mock space port complete with flyby spacecrafts and a roaming citizen population. One mission in "Death to Spies" features a nuclear plant fleshed out in details, with appropriate level of security setup, checkpoints, etc. STALKER is the perennial poster child for geometries that exist without dedicated gameplay-oriented purposes. GTA III/VC/SA/IV/etc.
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Yeah, what kind of point are you trying to make, Jash? That video games aren't 100% realistic?
How 'bout we scroll the damn bar to the right end of the spectrum some? There's nothing inherently wrong with having to disable generators, but don't patronize me with the pygmy and/or remedial versions, i.e. push the use key on a few water heaters a few rooms away. And how's killing the gen related to the story, apart from the fact that it's easy to shoehorn into a flotilla of different themes?
Papy on 24/4/2008 at 04:23
Quote Posted by Jashin
Yea, I'm sure these advanced beings who design these advanced generators that power star ships and crap would leave their grids around without any backup power.
I'm not sure about the context of your argument, but there's a difference between backup power and full redundancy. In "real life", blackouts do exist and a lot are caused because of a single point of failure.
(BTW, I have a UPS, my memory is ECC and my drives are in a RAID 1 configuration. I feel so much like an advanced beings. :cheeky: )
rachel on 24/4/2008 at 08:49
Even with redundancy bad shit can happen, didn't the ISS's 6 computers all go down at the same time a few months ago after an update? It was only for a day, but they got pretty scared as I recall, the station basically depended on the shuttle for everything during the crisis.
ds024775r7 on 25/4/2008 at 12:15
"Cutting off the generator" task is a great example of the problem discussed here. I know, that every popcultural creation should use patterns. This makes them easy to sell, and of course on the other hand it makes the recipient easy to understand and enter into the game. But stereotypical forms without innovations are really unamusing.
I think that game dinamics has became ossified. The gameflow has not changed much since Doom/SystemShock/DarkForces; while the technology has evolved very much, allowing to create something new. For example simulating a building or a little dictrict [the environment] makes the settings living, more dynamic and more realistic. [I think that devs of FarCry2 are trying something like this.] But in most games there are nothing like that, just usual efforts of storytelling i.e. by scripting. [Scripting is essential, but not the scripting of events!]
As a gamer, i wish something new (but of course based on the traditions), and I'm just afraid, that DX3 would be an average FPS-RPG... Hope it won't.
Papy on 28/4/2008 at 02:32
Quote Posted by ds024775r7
The gameflow has not changed much since Doom/SystemShock/DarkForces; while the technology has evolved very much, allowing to create something new. For example simulating a building or a little dictrict [the environment] makes the settings living, more dynamic and more realistic.
Having a computer 20 or 30 times more powerful than 10 years ago is great, but the only thing a faster computer does is make things faster, it doesn't make things better.
As for realistically simulating a little district (without using scripts), unfortunately the technology and the technique is still not there yet. We're not even close. Let's wait for one convincing AI first, then will talk about simulating a little district. Unfortunately, there's a good chance I'll be dead by that time (based on statistics, I have about 35 years left to live).
Dr. Dumb_lunatic on 30/4/2008 at 12:22
Isn't the main issue with 'hyper realism' in games that..well, it's usually incredibly dull?
I mean, if you have "disable the generator" as your mission, which of the following would most appeal?
1) Running down corridors, shooting guards from cover, stopping to heal when needed, before finding the generator control room, and clearing it of enemies. Hacking the central control computer and selecting the 'shutdown all' option.
2) Running down corridors, stopping to catch your breath every once in a while because running while carrying that many weapons is HARD. Reloading your game constantly because taking a single bullet pretty much ANYWHERE will either kill you or make you go into shock sufficient to stop you carrying on. Finding the generator control room after spending half an hour trying to work out how to circumvent the sensibly arranged security system preventing unauthorised access, and then spending another hour or two reloading your game because you need to clear out the room without anyone accidentally shooting any computers (you need to USE those computers, after all).
Finally succeed, use 1337 hacking skillz to crack computers at random (since the central control computer isn't labelled or positioned as such: let's be honest, if you actually worked there you'd KNOW which one it was, so labelling is unnecessary). Eventually find the right computer and gain access. Confronted with a desktop of icons. Hmmmm..is it generatorcontrol.exe or generatormaintenance.exe? Or perhaps neither. Ooh, second password required. Hmmm...hack that then. Oh look, shutdowns either require 24 hours notice or sufficient current emergency status to justify a spontaneous shutdown: either way you have to confirm it by phone to the central office. Now where was that phone...? Oh look, someone shot it. *reloads game*
See, number 2 might be hilarious once or twice, but is basically just shitty gameplay.
You could come up with analogous situations all over the place: it's all about finding a balance between realism and enjoyable gameplay, puzzles that aren't easy, but are also not so obtuse as to actually not be puzzles, but be instead just random real-life crapola.
Pyrian on 30/4/2008 at 18:00
...I always just blew it up. Convenient AND realistic. :D
Jashin on 30/4/2008 at 20:44
Quote Posted by Dr. Dumb_lunatic
2) Running down corridors, stopping to catch your breath every once in a while because running while carrying that many weapons is HARD. Reloading your game constantly because taking a single bullet pretty much ANYWHERE will either kill you or make you go into shock sufficient to stop you carrying on. Finding the generator control room after spending half an hour trying to work out how to circumvent the sensibly arranged security system preventing unauthorised access, and then spending another hour or two reloading your game because you need to clear out the room without anyone accidentally shooting any computers (you need to USE those computers, after all).
Finally succeed, use 1337 hacking skillz to crack computers at random (since the central control computer isn't labelled or positioned as such: let's be honest, if you actually worked there you'd KNOW which one it was, so labelling is unnecessary). Eventually find the right computer and gain access. Confronted with a desktop of icons. Hmmmm..is it generatorcontrol.exe or generatormaintenance.exe? Or perhaps neither. Ooh, second password required. Hmmm...hack that then. Oh look, shutdowns either require 24 hours notice or sufficient current emergency status to justify a spontaneous shutdown: either way you have to confirm it by phone to the central office. Now where was that phone...? Oh look, someone shot it. *reloads game*
Terrible example aside (nobody's gonna make a game like that), and contrary to conventional thinking, it's not about striking any balance between gameplay and realism. At all. Game realism is not about 1:1 reality.
It's about simulating, on-screen and off, relationships between the subject matter and the subjects within the game. It's about simulating the implications. That's what the posts above you were saying about simulating a "little district."
Can you have a whole game take place within a little building or a little district? Absolutely, as long as it's nuanced.
Papy on 30/4/2008 at 23:17
Quote Posted by Jashin
Can you have a whole game take place within a little building or a little district? Absolutely, as long as it's nuanced.
I would rather say as long as it makes sense that you can't go outside the building. A game taking place in a nuclear shelter, a prison or even a school or a hospital could work, but having artificial and obvious limitations in a place where the player expect none is dangerous if the game is about freedom (i.e. not a point and click adventure game, for example).
Jashin on 2/5/2008 at 06:23
You have to qualify it in within the game's context even when it's obvious like a nuclear shelter. Otherwise what's stopping me from opening the hatch?
