Everyone makes the same games. NEW IDEAS

#27 Unfortunantly, I am not very smart in the feild of computers. I'd say I'm smarter than 50% but keep in mind many people don't know how to use a computer. The only reason I'd say I'm at 50% is because I can understand a little of what's going on when people ,like the people on this website, are doing when they are doing there thing. I understand a little code, and I'm ok at modeling and being creative and all that. BUT, the only real reason I'm here is because I never realized how cool computers are. And one of the coolest things on the computer is making games. I picked torque because it has an easy user interface and I understood it a little because I played Blockland for about 3 months. If you note, one of my first posts is this topic. When I posted it, I posted it because one of the biggest things that bugged me about games is the fact that their all the about the same. One of the VERY first posts I read here on game-making said "half the people who buy torque are kids who want to make the next WOW a.k.a. world of warcraft". That's why I posted this topic. Their are too many people who want to make the next WOW or the next halo or the next some other game. I posted this, hoping that somebody would read it and think, why make the next, when you could make the first? I posted this to make people think, instead of making the next, make the first. If you go through the trouble to buy the tools, you might as well use them. I've seen people on the forums asking how to get their game on to xbox or playstation or something. For starters, is it original? I'm not saying everything HAS to be totally original, I'm just saying it would be nice if someone would think along those lines, instead of trying to make thier game like another game. When pong came out, other people didn't make new versions of pong, they made pac-man. Today their are so many games it's acceptable to base a game off of another one, but ifyou do base your game off another one, it'd better be good. Nobody likes to pay for the same thing twice.


P.S. Try not to turn the forums into a battle feild. Take both sides into consideration. Each side gives good points. Like someone says, this idea tkes too much memory space to work. A BAD way to respond is:
JUST MAKE EVERYTHING SIMPLE!!!! INSTEAD OF BLA BLA BLA SAY BLA!!!!!
A good way to answer is:
I agree with you but there are ways to get around this problem, such as bla bla bla. Each was probably alitle to the extreme but you get my point. And this is just an example. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. I have to say that because I'm used to forums where no-matter what you post the first 50 replies are all flames toward you. I like these forums because here the flames aren'tso mean.

#28 Oh yeah, another note to Ted. About the lazy thing again. I seriously doubt anyone on these forums is incredibly lazy. Yeah sure you probably have a few here and their that don't care, but anyone who is semi-serious about computers isn't lazy. Computers are not easy to learn about, especially ,like you mentioned, the fact that most people learning or doing things on the computer can only do this 1% to 5% of the time. I can relate to that since I've been trying to learn for a good 6 months and now have a basic, basic, basic, basic knowledge on anything. What I meant by game developers being lazy, is the people out there making games that have the ability to do so much more than what they use. I'm talking about the people who have 20% or more of their time to make a game but instead of making a classic game thy make the fast money making game that will maybe make the top 20 game list for a day or two. Because I like examples so much here's another one. You said that making a game like I described would end up costing more than it would be worth. I can name three other things I know to. One, is that when the TV first came out, their were people out their who said everyone would get tired of staring at a cardboard box. When cars were invented people said it would be liking sitting ontop of a gasoline bomb. The last thing I know is the last three things I sated are 100% true. Everytime you get in your car you are sitting on a bomb. People do get tired of staring at cardboard boxes, and a game like I described would cost more to make than it would benifet. But, they found ways to keep the gasoline from exploding, they found ways to keep people intrested in TV, and someone out there can find a way to make this kind of game happen. The last thing I'm going to say, or type, is that nothing can ever be acheived without taking a risk or losing something. You have to ask yourself, is it worth it? To me, it is. It might nt be to you, but I'm fine with that. I didn't post this to make everyone agree with me. I just wanted to make sure people know that the option IS out there. You don't HAVE to make a game for money. Youtube is a VERY succseful website. The people who put their videos on youtube don't get anything out of it. Most videos get 100 hits in a year. You have to ask yourself, is it worth it?

#29 Oh yeah, another note to Ted. About the lazy thing again. I seriously doubt anyone on these forums is incredibly lazy. Yeah sure you probably have a few here and their that don't care, but anyone who is semi-serious about computers isn't lazy. Computers are not easy to learn about, especially ,like you mentioned, the fact that most people learning or doing things on the computer can only do this 1% to 5% of the time. I can relate to that since I've been trying to learn for a good 6 months and now have a basic, basic, basic, basic knowledge on anything. What I meant by game developers being lazy, is the people out there making games that have the ability to do so much more than what they use. I'm talking about the people who have 20% or more of their time to make a game but instead of making a classic game thy make the fast money making game that will maybe make the top 20 game list for a day or two. Because I like examples so much here's another one. You said that making a game like I described would end up costing more than it would be worth. I can name three other things I know to. One, is that when the TV first came out, their were people out their who said everyone would get tired of staring at a cardboard box. When cars were invented people said it would be liking sitting ontop of a gasoline bomb. The last thing I know is the last three things I sated are 100% true. Everytime you get in your car you are sitting on a bomb. People do get tired of staring at cardboard boxes, and a game like I described would cost more to make than it would benifet. But, they found ways to keep the gasoline from exploding, they found ways to keep people intrested in TV, and someone out there can find a way to make this kind of game happen. The last thing I'm going to say, or type, is that nothing can ever be acheived without taking a risk or losing something. You have to ask yourself, is it worth it? To me, it is. It might nt be to you, but I'm fine with that. I didn't post this to make everyone agree with me. I just wanted to make sure people know that the option IS out there. You don't HAVE to make a game for money. Youtube is a VERY succseful website. The people who put their videos on youtube don't get anything out of it. Most videos get 100 hits in a year. You have to ask yourself, is it worth it?

#30 @Smarty Pantsp: Well said, and a good attitude. Understand that we do get a lot of people saying the same thing around here, so the post I made about how difficult the project could be was just a reality check, but not necessarily trying to tell you to give up. A good number of the newbies that show up don't realize the amount of work involved, so postings explaining that are a good "shock to the system" for them, and those that are still willing to do the work usually... do the work.

And as for what you have to say about risk, you're spot on.

#31

Quote:
...noone has it figured out yet except those with no screenshots to show, but lots of words to throw around about how great their game will be.

Quote:
I'm simply asking for you to explain in technical detail (jargon, as you call it) what you think the ideas for getting around the problem are...

What I considered 'jargon' was the rude remark (the top quote) you made, which was evidently oriented towards me and the work I was going to share with you if you showed a willingness to understand the theories behind their implementations. Stating that I had nothing to show, which you have no evidence of, is slandering, not criticism, and I would expect no less of a response from you had I insulted your work, especially if I had done so without considering it of any value, which has been your claim, not mine. I never stated that my work was 'the shit', just that it worked, through simpler means, and, after trying to explain some of the theories behind the technicalities, you blew it off before I could feel comfortable in sharing some of their inner workings. I don't have to prove anything to anybody other than myself, but this wasn't ever about proving anything as much as it was me sharing my theories with you because you were in need of a way to see a possibility for your own implementation. You asked how it could be done, I pointed in a direction similar to that which I've taken myself, and asked you if you could see a way to implement it in your own way, nothing more. Hence:

Quote:
My point, which is still not clear, apparently, is that while you state what you want your framework to do, you're not being any more detailed than that.

I'm simply asking for you to explain in technical detail...what you think the ideas for getting around the problem are, since you claim such advanced features to be working...

I know inheritance and parenting well as a programmer, since they are OOP principles. But their intent is not so much to minimize the load of a CPU as much as to create the ability for people to reuse code.

See how I identified the term above? That is one of the secrets behind my implementations, not using OOP in it's normal terms, but as a foundation behind the workaround, a guideline, which allows us to map a game and objectify each instance of the mechanics.

For an example of what I'm saying, let's take a Battleship gameboard. You have your coordinates, correct? They lie at the surface plane of the gameboard, right? Then you have your ships, which sit atop that (the 'sea' being the parent of those ships' positions), right? Now you also have your indications of hit or miss, which are primarily 'offspring' of the gameboard positioning, but also of the ships (on the indication of a hit). With me still?
Now, this is somewhat of a direct representation of how my implementation works - you have your base coordinates, which determine the blunt of the game mechanics; then you have your 'gamepieces' which are the terrain, models, and other primary offspring; then you have your secondary offspring, which are the defining instances of those models as well as their hidden elements and other factors, that can be 'hit or miss' on demand as per the game rules, which may or may not be part of those siblings but are ultimately part of the game mechanics. Thus, game character Y(primary sibling) at position X(main parent) may have Z characteristics(secondary siblings).
In my implementation I also have several other planes based off of the main parent plane, though I can have almost an infinite amount of them (alot does eventually bog it down). Each plane can have a number of objects and child characteristics associated with them, in their exact coordinates, and can even represent a new plane (like tables, shelves, stairs, etc.). For error prevention, we also have spacers, or null planes, where there is nothing. Each and every characteristic can define their existance with the rest, as per their parents structuring rules, and thus we can cut out alot of the math required by other games and simplify it to per situation interactions. These interaction 'rules' determine the outcome of everything from object movement to object collision to sound effect associations to conversational elements, even effects like a brushfire, or flowing liquid, or even scents can be manipulated through these measures of exact control, all with a 'plugin-like' interface. This also allows for total freeform manipulation of the environment!

Now, can you see how I have this worked out in technical detail without me having to go into that level of detail? Can you see how an implementation similar to this might be helpful to your own persuits? Can you think of some ways that this implementation may be lacking in any areas? Lastly, if this implementation is possible with the gameplay systems in general as I've described here, could you see how similar implementations could also be used in configuring and modifying other game elements, per user, on demand, and with the same precision (like custom character construction, object creation, etc.)?

How this is alot of work, though I believe not really much more than normal, is in the content that must be created. Though, as per my last question above, this is solved with reusable object creation tools which are integrated, not only for us developers, but for the players as well! It's simply pieced together allowing all sorts of customization freedom.

As I've also mentioned in other posts, all elements of the game use this same hierarchial structuring in their implementation as well, like combat, movements, spellcasting, etc, which makes the gameplay not only freeform in nature but simple to use as well as uniform in structure!

All that's really left is defining each type of 'plugin' and it's base ruleset determined by it's environmental positioning, it's state, it's state of awareness, and it's projected outcome/result. Why these 4 identifiers? We need to know where it is, what's happening to it, what it has to do with what might be going on around it, and how it's dealing with a situation which might occur per the other states. With these primary identifiers, which can all have exact values, even if there are many of those values, we can determine the layout of all the action going on in the game and simplify it's data.

Now, we can also cut out some more stuff, like what's behind us on-screen (outside of our view (some 'prep')), what's too far away (over the horizon, seeing as my gameworld is spherical-based(some more prep and/or placeholders)), and what's going on way out of range, by basing our game world on client-sponsored tabbing. Now, our servers just manage the 'tabbed' data between clients who also manage client-to-client data on their own, and all of it can be verified by a gamestate server-based verification proccess! This is the stuff I need to work on! Oh yeah, there's also that widescreen-periferal-vision-perspective-view that I'm trying to perfect, too! :)

Let me know what you think of how this sounds so far, please, Smarty P.? I wouldn't mind any questions or suggestions you might have, either! I'm trying to make it as best I can for the players' enjoyment, not for a big, dumb paycheck!

As for you, Ted, I don't hate you or anything, in fact, if anything I applaude your work, I just wish you wouldn't presume to know what I'm doing, if it might be wrong, without considering that I might be right, if even only for the fact that I've been willing to share what could be 'the shit!'
~ Ronixus

#32

Quote:What I considered 'jargon' was the rude remark (the top quote) you made, which was evidently oriented towards me and the work I was going to share with you if you showed a willingness to understand the theories behind their implementations. Stating that I had nothing to show, which you have no evidence of, is slandering, not criticism, and I would expect no less of a response from you had I insulted your work...

Ronixus... You do realize that this comment you're talking about was made before either of us had responded to each other on this thread at all, right? That being the case, the only thing I gather from this is that if anyone makes a similar comment on the forums, then they too must be talking about you, and they too must be slandering you. Because other than the fact that you mentioned your own plans in this thread, there was no connection between that comment and yourself. So, for you to make that connection means that such a general comment struck a nerve with you, even though you were not mentioned or even implied in it. And by the way, slander is spoken, while libel is the accusation you were looking for, which is still wrong. Libel (or slander) is someone stating something that they know to be untrue about another party with malice in order to cause damage to said party. What I did was state the opinion- which I hold to- that those who most like to spout off about wanting to make these games usually have no screenshots to show of it. If you don't like hearing it, then cover your ears, because I won't stop saying it.

Quote:I don't have to prove anything to anybody other than myself, but this wasn't ever about proving anything as much as it was me sharing my theories with you because you were in need of a way to see a possibility for your own implementation.

Again, you're misstating what's happened. I was posting to get Smarty Pantsp to think about his own game design, not because I need someone to give me an implementation for my own work. You responded to the datacenter comment by stating how your design was going to be able to not melt down a server, and how flexible it was, which is also not the goal of what I was stating. As a matter of fact:

Quote:My point, as I said, was to do with the technical difficulties of freeform play, and the choas that inevitably ensues if the game is total freeform play.

So, there's the context, and anything you say about what I meant after I clearly stated my purpose in saying it (before you had chosen to respond, I might add), means less in that light. The fact that you jumped in with what you were doing with your game while I was talking to someone else about theirs points to you indeed needing to prove something. Do that in a blog. With screenies. Everyone likes screenies, especially the cute colorful ones...

And that's the last post I have on that matter in these forums. Take it up with me in email if you still have a problem (it's in my profile).

#33 I recommend people try Crackdown on the Xbox 360. Is very free form, plays smoothly, and yet is focused at the same time. You're basically a genetically enhanced cop who evolves into a super-hero type character as you gain experience. The AI is dumb but fun enough, the city is detailed and big/diverse. In my opinion, it's an excellent example of how to balance free-form with focus.

#34 fun