.:: Bots United ::.

.:: Bots United ::. (http://forums.bots-united.com/index.php)
-   Obsession Software Ltd. (http://forums.bots-united.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Engine (http://forums.bots-united.com/showthread.php?t=74)

stefanhendriks 28-12-2003 20:27

Engine
 
8) now for l33t people at this place, what are we going to do? Create an own engine? I think that is truly insane, it would be better to take a look at an engine which is good and free. Of course we have bots to work on and several other things on our hands, this would be worth considering.

We should set our goals about the game though, i'd say, make a mixture between DoD and CS and beat the crap out of the 2 original mods. Make it so cool that we l33t coders can take over the world and get richer then Bill Gates.. muhahahaha. erm, right o_O 9_9

8)

Pierre-Marie Baty 29-12-2003 00:51

Re: Engine
 
We thought about this very seriously with botmeister a good couple months ago... The idea was, yes, take a good and free engine, preferrably open-source, hack and toy with it, get used to its internals so as to use it at best, and use it to build a REAL tactical FPS.

I mean, look! Today which is the FPS which can still boast of being something better than a Quake-style Team deathmatch ? TFC ? Too unrealistic. CS ? Two troops of kids rushing and collapsing into each other. One grenade takes away half the team ; another grenade finishes the round. DoD ? Yes, I reckon there are some ideas in it. But we'd thought of something better.

One thing first, NEVER describing one team "the good" and the other one "the evil". We were agreeing to take great care of that... for a good couple of reasons you can easily imagine, influence on young gamers and self-identification to the cause being one of them (I still remember the reactions of the many young CS gamers, on both sides of the planet, during the {invasion || liberation} of Iraq).

A second thing, was to put a strong emphasis on the penatly given to players when they lack teamplay, tactics or discipline ; like imposing some notion of "fair play" - counting NOT the player's frags AT ALL, but an overall player score, which would include the preservation of civilians, the fullfillment of the goal, the discipline, heroism, respect of the safety rules (e.g, not fire in a marketplace crowded with civilians). In such an environment, every means of war used by the guerilla/armed forces/terrorists/police ever used and in use now should be considered : human bombing against targets, civilian shields, gas, soporific bullets, drones, spy cams, bullet-proof shields, execution of hostages, etc.

I should really get a hand on those old emails... Rob at the rescue ? 8)

stefanhendriks 29-12-2003 10:26

Re: Engine
 
I guess our first step is to decide a good , flexible, easy-to-use (if any exists) engine and then think further. I knew from a past search this is not easy.

Austin 30-12-2003 01:47

Re: Engine
 
1) CS = the most played game still, period.
2) CS 2.0 would be a giant hit.

And it still hasnít arrived and 1.6 isnít it either.

SoÖ

Why not take the best of Cs and improve on it.
PM mentioned some things.
Add in civilians, some method of imposing the map goals instead of mindless fragging.

How about,
More than 2 teams.
Longer rounds with more involved goals.

botmeister 30-12-2003 23:37

Re: Engine
 
Quote:

I should really get a hand on those old emails... Rob at the rescue ?
Yes I still have them. I'll summerize the contents and post here once I have enough time for it.

I think the best games are the ones where the people who play it can make it into what they want it to be. If there's enough flexibility built into it people can play for years and not get bored.

It is probably a good idea to take what is good about the most popular games such as CS, and use those ideas for a new one.

There are many things that make a game good or bad besides it being "fun" which is of course very important: too much cheating and hidden exploits will ruin a team play game, connecting to servers should be easy and fast, play through the internet should be reasonable over the typically low quality DSL (or even a modem?), server and client must have high stability levels, hardware requirements must be modest so the game can work on a typical box, identity verification for team play must be difficult to forge - and difficult to replace (charging a painfull enough fee for a new ID may do the trick), etc.

In any case, I think it may be impossible to get enough people to all agree on what a game should look like, but if we build something that others can expand on, or customise to their preference, then we can let whoever plays the game decide what they want it to be like.

My personal preference is to model it after what we see going on in real global conflicts. Make it a game for adults like ourselves, and not for little children. In the real world we see the big guys with all the money, advanced hardware and training beating up on the little poor guys who defend themselves using primitive and/or obsolete technologies (eg AK-47's, RPG's, suicide bombers, and even rockets on donkey carts!).

In this game, no one has to be the "bad guy", because you can assume whatever point of view you want to justify the "team" you choose to play on. Both sides can be the terrorists or the good guys, it's up to the individual to decide, and you don't have to care one whay or the other to play and have fun.

Yes, it sure can be politically motivated, or just fun to play, that's what will get people all fired up and determined to "win" over the other team (or teams). In fact if there is politics introduced that's great, because it will help generate publicity and interest.

Allow it to be "in your face" using custom "scenarios" and maps which can be modeled after real world conflicts (or fictional if the mapper chooses). People can follow links (if the scenario modeler includes them) to websites with differing points of view, they can include official government websites and so-called radical "consparicy" websites which attempt to expose the appearent fraud and criminal activity behind most conflicts (on both sides or whatever the modeler wants, or not at all).

Forums can be set up to discuss, debate and study each scenario + map (or maps). Imagine the fired up discussion with something like that! Strategy and team play all mixed in with politics - what a monster, but possibly a great success for a game - escpecially in our "new world order".

I can never see any of the major gaming companies put out something like this, they have'nt the balls for it, and most (if not all) of them are deeply involved in the politics to begin with - look at America's Army which is owned by the US military itself - it's an uninteresting game designed as part of its recruiting program, and the company the controls Valve, Vivendi Universal of France, is a huge monster of a company that has its fingers in all sorts of global ventures that are very politically influenced. As for Microsoft, nothing needs to be said there. You'll never see a really interesting game come out from any of these organizations - EVER!

Perhaps the idea really is too ambitious or controversial to consider? But if we let the scenario designers and mappers decide what to introduce as content, then we do not have to be involved in any of the controversy directly. We simply provided the means, and let others do what they wanted to do with it. Not up to us really, no?

We will however get attacked for introducing some of the weapons which the "terrorists" (to be politically correct) use, such as suicide bombers, donkey carts with rockets, IED's, etc. But fuck em I say, that's the real life shit that's happening, so why ignore it? besides, it would be way too cool to play inside such a simulation.

Look at the CS 1.6, they even felt the need to remove the real names of the guns! WTF is that!? Is that a situation we want to create a new game after?

*edit*

So much for summarizing later o_O

stefanhendriks 31-12-2003 11:22

Re: Engine
 
i agree with all you say there botmeister (really i read it all! :D). I think this game can only become some sort of success if other people start thinking with us. What we need is a solid engine which is easy to modifify (kinda like HL right now) in all sorts of ways. We cannot do all the jobs ourselves, i can't imagine we should map/create sounds/l33t gfx , etc. But once the idea rolls out, i bet other people get interested and start producing something.

I also agree most companies simply don't have the balls to start something new. I haven't played a new game for years now, and its getting boring! Be honest, do you really think HL 2 will be such a major hit as HL 1? I don't think there will ever be a major hit like that (and i am not talking about sales).

Nova 31-12-2003 11:41

Re: Engine
 
Yoi guys are off the nut, serously .. oh well, ill do the PR and if you need financing, im the guy to ask :)

stefanhendriks 31-12-2003 12:25

Re: Engine
 
off the nut? nah, we just want to beat the crap out of all those commercial guys! ;)

Pierre-Marie Baty 31-12-2003 12:32

Re: Engine
 
well, I thought here was the "home of a lot of crazy weirdos ?" :D it is not ? we need to move elsewhere or what ? :D

stefanhendriks 31-12-2003 13:26

Re: Engine
 
rofl! :D no, i think this is the place to be. I htink Nova was lost ;)


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 23:57.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.