It would be adverse to the game. Its exactly the sort of thing game designers often cut from games because it may entertain a small number of players but more often than not it will piss the rest off.
Rather than making it necessary, it should just be optional or secondary to quests/plot/whatever.
For me it has a lot to do with game immersion. Am I some omniscient hand controlling this character, going through the motions that the designers let me, or can I do what I want? If I want to stick a nail in a 2x4 and use it as a weapon rather than xyz ubersword, I should damn well get the option. I have some gasoline and matches? I should be able to burn stuff down with xyz possible consequences.
Making molotov cocktails? adding a knife to the end of a gun? putting a feather in my hat?
These are the kind of things that make a game "cool" for me. I don't know about the rest of you, though.
For me it has a lot to do with game immersion. Am I some omniscient hand controlling this character, going through the motions that the designers let me, or can I do what I want? If I want to stick a nail in a 2x4 and use it as a weapon rather than xyz ubersword, I should damn well get the option. I have some gasoline and matches? I should be able to burn stuff down with xyz possible consequences.
Making molotov cocktails? adding a knife to the end of a gun? putting a feather in my hat?
These are the kind of things that make a game "cool" for me. I don't know about the rest of you, though.
Last edited by MadKatter (2008-08-10 19:18:47)
Indeed, I enjoy things like that too but its doesn't make it cool enough for enough people which is why they don't do it. Its not at all cost effective.
If nothing else it could be an idea for a small scale company (Freetoplay, members buy "cool" items etc)
or
Im sure a big company could take a gamble on it being the next big thing. You think it would be cost effective if it had the playerbase of WoW and good merchandising?
or
Im sure a big company could take a gamble on it being the next big thing. You think it would be cost effective if it had the playerbase of WoW and good merchandising?
They already do, hence why they are small scale and remain small scale. eg, Roma Victor
WoW works for exactly the reason that it doesn't have too much crap to do.
WoW works for exactly the reason that it doesn't have too much crap to do.
It's saddening though. I do mean combining the play-ability and developing of WoW with the options of this Roma Victor. It would be a gamble, but imagine the success. I would literally find myself a few tools and run around making my own stuff.Vilham wrote:
They already do, hence why they are small scale and remain small scale. eg, Roma Victor
WoW works for exactly the reason that it doesn't have too much crap to do.
It would take quite a bit of acknowledgement to get a F2P game like that mainstream.
Your not thinking deep enough into issues like balancing, you don't just add something to a multiplayer game, adding hundreds of new things or an entirely new concept to a game after release is not a good idea. There is no way Blizzard would risk something like that. You are thinking this idea is much greater than it is, to the mainstream this idea isn't something that is interesting, hence why it's not used in mainstream games.
It's not "adding to" it's starting from scratch. By combine, I do mean a completely new game.
I don't think my idea is "end-all" of games, but I do definitely believe we'll see more of it in years to come.
I don't think my idea is "end-all" of games, but I do definitely believe we'll see more of it in years to come.
here's an awesome next gen animation program... Natural Motion
http://www.naturalmotion.com/downloads.htm
all the models for a destructible environment have to be built that way... like a bunch of jigsaw pieces together in the shape of a house etc...
computers can handle these demands a lot better without lag... so the destroyed pieces can stay in the scene for as long as the game is played...
not like in BF2 where the jeeps/tanks and bodies fade away after being destroyed or killed... games are going to be wild in the next few years...
Far Cry 2 has some cool abilities...
http://www.naturalmotion.com/downloads.htm
all the models for a destructible environment have to be built that way... like a bunch of jigsaw pieces together in the shape of a house etc...
computers can handle these demands a lot better without lag... so the destroyed pieces can stay in the scene for as long as the game is played...
not like in BF2 where the jeeps/tanks and bodies fade away after being destroyed or killed... games are going to be wild in the next few years...
Far Cry 2 has some cool abilities...
Love is the answer
GTA IV used NaturalMotion's Euphoria engine. It was great.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
here's an awesome next gen animation program... Natural Motion
http://www.naturalmotion.com/downloads.htm
all the models for a destructible environment have to be built that way... like a bunch of jigsaw pieces together in the shape of a house etc...
computers can handle these demands a lot better without lag... so the destroyed pieces can stay in the scene for as long as the game is played...
not like in BF2 where the jeeps/tanks and bodies fade away after being destroyed or killed... games are going to be wild in the next few years...
Far Cry 2 has some cool abilities...
I forgot what game it was but the other day I was playing a game after playing either BF:BC or CoD4 and Even though...oh right. Call of duty 2. I tried not to try shooting through dressers and stuff to kill the nazis but kept finding myself shooting at furniture and other light objects that they would use as cover. It just didn't feel the same.
a) These are concepts that have long been in practice. Broken objects, exploding barrels and wall piercing have been around for a great deal of time. Hell, Red Faction's environment deforms from explosions. You can host an unlimited ammo death match and have lethal battles in your very own anthill. It isn't revolutionary; it just improves over the years.MadKatter wrote:
a) I mean there's a a wooden pallet, you can smash it with your crowbar. There's an explosive barrel, you can shoot it until it explodes. In COD4, there's a wall, but it lets your bullet through. There's a TV screen, you can kill it with your gun.
b) I had an idea for an MMO, that would make EVERYTHING interactable. You combine hammer with a watch and you come up with... a broken watch. You had a piece of metal and pliers? You can make a fish hook. A stick and string too? A fishing pole. You enter some guy's house? With the appropriate skills you should be able to nick anything small. He catches you? You're damn well going to pay for it!
b) Concepts like this are often tossed around but are ultimately limited by the progress of hardware technology. Oblivion's a good effort along these lines, but is restricted. Age of Conan was somewhat of a disappointment along these lines, as some doors cannot be entered and thievery isn't a huge aspect like it should be.
Games have been improving, but people gotta give them longer than 30 years to perfectly emulate reality.MadKatter wrote:
I've seen graphics improve, gameplay improve, lag improve...Poseidon wrote:
As they should be. In 10 years I can't wait for to see how amazingly you can interact with the environment. If games want to go for realism, they need to advance upon that.
Now interaction needs to improve. This is a lot easier for MMOs than FPS though due to processing I'd suppose.
Sheesh.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-08-11 06:20:21)
I reckon virtual reality and games that you can control with your mind is the future of gaming. In guiness world records someone got like 6000 points in space invader only using their brain. As soon as they get better and better at reading signals and whatever they need to, games will advance in unbelievable and seemingly impossible ways.
This.d4rkph03n1x wrote:
I reckon virtual reality and games that you can control with your mind is the future of gaming. In guiness world records someone got like 6000 points in space invader only using their brain. As soon as they get better and better at reading signals and whatever they need to, games will advance in unbelievable and seemingly impossible ways.
I'd be in heaven if gaming was like AVALON.
You probably will, but not on a scale anything like you are imagining. It quite simply isn't fun for the mainstream. Its a pretty simple concept really.MadKatter wrote:
It's not "adding to" it's starting from scratch. By combine, I do mean a completely new game.
I don't think my idea is "end-all" of games, but I do definitely believe we'll see more of it in years to come.
Not fun means not in game.
Maybe it's just me then. I thought everyone liked to build their own things.
Edit:
Baseball bat + shirt + gasoline + match. Who wouldn't want to run around with a flaming baseball bat?
Edit:
Baseball bat + shirt + gasoline + match. Who wouldn't want to run around with a flaming baseball bat?
Last edited by MadKatter (2008-08-11 07:51:33)
It only pisses the rest of the people off if the game shoves them in the direction of having to interact with everything just so the technology can be shown off (exceptions include 'Portal'). As with elements of cinema, good technology is something a person might notice at first, but can easily put out of their mind to enjoy the whole.Vilham wrote:
It would be adverse to the game. Its exactly the sort of thing game designers often cut from games because it may entertain a small number of players but more often than not it will piss the rest off.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-08-11 16:46:49)
Very true, but for any kind of purpose behind it for it to be worthwhile putting the hours into adding it to the game it needs to be something good right? Otherwise whats the point? To please 5 people out of every 1000? That aint how game development works, and thus if it is good it forces players to get it to be as good as other players. Balance. The most annoying thing to get right in any multiplayer game.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It only pisses the rest of the people off if the game shoves them in the direction of having to interact with everything just so the technology can be shown off (exceptions include 'Portal'). As with elements of cinema, good technology is something a person might notice at first, but can easily put out of their mind to enjoy the whole.Vilham wrote:
It would be adverse to the game. Its exactly the sort of thing game designers often cut from games because it may entertain a small number of players but more often than not it will piss the rest off.
An example for something you don't HAVE to do but makes you considerable better is getting PVP gear in wow. You don't have to get it, but if you don't you won't be as good as other players thus you are either forced to get it or play at a disadvantage or just get pissed off with the game and stop playing altogether.
If PVP gear served no purpose in terms of being better than other gear hardly any players would bother getting it, and hence it would be wasted development time.
Last edited by Vilham (2008-08-11 17:11:17)
Another good example of development is Oblivion. They went ahead and released it and have been patching it like any (yeah, I wish) other company, but the game's innards are so accessible that it has an immense modding community that adds more than the developers ever could've within their specified time frame.Vilham wrote:
Very true, but for any kind of purpose behind it for it to be worthwhile putting the hours into adding it to the game it needs to be something good right? Otherwise whats the point? To please 5 people out of every 1000? That aint how game development works, and thus if it is good it forces players to get it to be as good as other players. Balance. The most annoying thing to get right in any multiplayer game.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It only pisses the rest of the people off if the game shoves them in the direction of having to interact with everything just so the technology can be shown off (exceptions include 'Portal'). As with elements of cinema, good technology is something a person might notice at first, but can easily put out of their mind to enjoy the whole.Vilham wrote:
It would be adverse to the game. Its exactly the sort of thing game designers often cut from games because it may entertain a small number of players but more often than not it will piss the rest off.
An example for something you don't HAVE to do but makes you considerable better is getting PVP gear in wow. You don't have to get it, but if you don't you won't be as good as other players thus you are either forced to get it or play at a disadvantage or just get pissed off with the game and stop playing altogether.
If PVP gear served no purpose in terms of being better than other gear hardly any players would bother getting it, and hence it would be wasted development time.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-08-11 17:24:31)
Sorry but im failing to see the relevance of that?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Another good example of development is Oblivion. They went ahead and released it and have been patching it like any (yeah, I wish) other company, but the game's innards are so accessible that it has an immense modding community that adds more than the developers ever could've within their specified time frame.Vilham wrote:
Very true, but for any kind of purpose behind it for it to be worthwhile putting the hours into adding it to the game it needs to be something good right? Otherwise whats the point? To please 5 people out of every 1000? That aint how game development works, and thus if it is good it forces players to get it to be as good as other players. Balance. The most annoying thing to get right in any multiplayer game.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It only pisses the rest of the people off if the game shoves them in the direction of having to interact with everything just so the technology can be shown off (exceptions include 'Portal'). As with elements of cinema, good technology is something a person might notice at first, but can easily put out of their mind to enjoy the whole.
An example for something you don't HAVE to do but makes you considerable better is getting PVP gear in wow. You don't have to get it, but if you don't you won't be as good as other players thus you are either forced to get it or play at a disadvantage or just get pissed off with the game and stop playing altogether.
If PVP gear served no purpose in terms of being better than other gear hardly any players would bother getting it, and hence it would be wasted development time.
/picard palmfaceVilham wrote:
Sorry but im failing to see the relevance of that?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Another good example of development is Oblivion. They went ahead and released it and have been patching it like any (yeah, I wish) other company, but the game's innards are so accessible that it has an immense modding community that adds more than the developers ever could've within their specified time frame.Vilham wrote:
Very true, but for any kind of purpose behind it for it to be worthwhile putting the hours into adding it to the game it needs to be something good right? Otherwise whats the point? To please 5 people out of every 1000? That aint how game development works, and thus if it is good it forces players to get it to be as good as other players. Balance. The most annoying thing to get right in any multiplayer game.
An example for something you don't HAVE to do but makes you considerable better is getting PVP gear in wow. You don't have to get it, but if you don't you won't be as good as other players thus you are either forced to get it or play at a disadvantage or just get pissed off with the game and stop playing altogether.
If PVP gear served no purpose in terms of being better than other gear hardly any players would bother getting it, and hence it would be wasted development time.
I'll make it obvious:
a) Studios usually like to get their products out without filling them with unnecessary crap.
b) People like to add unnecessary crap to games through mods.
c) This thread wants more unnecessary (but cool) crap, such as everything interacting with everything (that'll certainly push the plot).
d) Smart devs release their games with tools so modders can grant the unnecessary crap wishes of gamers.
e) Devs sit back and relax while people add free content to their game. For free. And any problems generated due to extra unnecessary crap aren't their fault.
If I could, I'd roll back this entire discussion to avoid this nonsense. It didn't have to be relevant to the last 2/3 of your post, which picks out a single game to talk about like mine did.
That sentence boggles the mind.Vilham wrote:
Very true, but for any kind of purpose behind it for it to be worthwhile putting the hours into adding it to the game it needs to be something good right?
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-08-11 20:05:01)
Oblivion more so than Morrowind.Mutantsteak wrote:
alot of those ideas sound like Morrowind tbh
Adding modding tools is completely different from what the OP was talking about. The mods for morrowind don't add useless crap, they don't mod the actual games code. Some people make a few useless crap items that serve no purpose, but the most downloads on any site for morrowind/oblivion mods are graphical improvements, new towns/houses, new quests, new armour and weapons. How does any of those come into the same category of useless crap?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
/picard palmfaceVilham wrote:
Sorry but im failing to see the relevance of that?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Another good example of development is Oblivion. They went ahead and released it and have been patching it like any (yeah, I wish) other company, but the game's innards are so accessible that it has an immense modding community that adds more than the developers ever could've within their specified time frame.
I'll make it obvious:
a) Studios usually like to get their products out without filling them with unnecessary crap.
b) People like to add unnecessary crap to games through mods.
c) This thread wants more unnecessary (but cool) crap, such as everything interacting with everything (that'll certainly push the plot).
d) Smart devs release their games with tools so modders can grant the unnecessary crap wishes of gamers.
e) Devs sit back and relax while people add free content to their game. For free. And any problems generated due to extra unnecessary crap aren't their fault.
If I could, I'd roll back this entire discussion to avoid this nonsense. It didn't have to be relevant to the last 2/3 of your post, which picks out a single game to talk about like mine did.That sentence boggles the mind.Vilham wrote:
Very true, but for any kind of purpose behind it for it to be worthwhile putting the hours into adding it to the game it needs to be something good right?
And I still don't see what a company adding modding tools to a game has to do with putting useless crap into a game. Modding tools certainly arent useless crap. And even if they are, (which they aren't) not all games can have modding tools and certainly MMO's can't. Again you seem to missed the entire point. BALANCE. Balance and wasted man hours are the reason useless crap is not put into games with multiplayer features.
Indeed that sentence was badly worded. Live with it.
Last edited by Vilham (2008-08-12 07:24:17)
After your MMO idea i want to go on Runescape...
Damn you!
Damn you!