Thread: Engine
View Single Post
Re: Engine
Old
  (#5)
botmeister
Ex-Council Member
 
botmeister's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,090
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Default Re: Engine - 31-12-2003

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


Maker of the (mEAn) Bot.Admin Manager

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

Last edited by botmeister; 31-12-2003 at 00:38..
  
Reply With Quote