Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Beginnings Of The Metaverse For The Gaming World

Posted by timothy on from the meet-interesting-people-don't-kill-them dept.

narq writes "From the world of Counter-Strike comes an interactive 3D environment for online interactions. Users will be able to accomplish productive goals or just waste time. I can't wait for the sword fighting algorithms to start to take shape. Here is the post at Counter-Server."

8 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Well, this isn't new... by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, this isn't new, but it is great that someone is finally actually doing it. I hope I don't offend gamers, but I think there are some places where discussions more fruitful then just about games. I think e2 would certainly benefit from having a 3-D city to interact in.

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
  2. Ummm... so what? by DarkZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's just Adobe's 3D chat program, Atmosphere, with a Counter-Strike theme. Am I missing some part of this that makes it important, interesting, or even vaguely original.

  3. Productive Goals? by StefanJ · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Users will be able to accomplish productive goals or just waste time.

    So does this environment, like, allow you to use your avatars to run machine tools, or steer a riding mower, or use some kind of houshold waldo that will let you clean the toilet or chop vegetables?

    And since it will be in 3D, your productivity (or non-productivity) will be dramatically increased because . . . ah . . . um.

    3D! Whooo!

  4. Um... by Lordfly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this relevant at all?

    Don't want to be flamebait here or anything, but really... this stuff has been going on for years. Like Activeworlds has been doing since like 1997. You can even build your own stuff (landscaping, buildings, even entire cities -- I did so when I was 14) in real-time. Sure, you can't shoot people in the face, but do you really want to all the time?

    I suppose this is News For Nerds because Counter-strike is l33t or something. Frankly, I wouldn't want to chat with most of the CS community... I might get accused of cheating using a Chatbot :)

    But seriously, this has been around for years. I fail to see why this is important. Must be a slow news day.

    Lordfly

    --
    hookers and grits.
  5. Is it or isn't it? by mike_sucks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Didn't you just effectively say: "Foo already exists, but I'm glad someone just made foo"?

    Anyway, let's assume foo does indeed already exist in one or more forms. Got any links to them? I'd be interested in checking the alternatives out.

    cheers, /mike

    --
    -- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
  6. Come on, guys! by megaduck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of the comments posted so far seem to be of the Counterstrike sux/Atmosphere sux/etc. variety. Where's the imagination? The interesting thing about DustCity is not the implementation, it's the idea. News about a persistent CounterStrike-themed world is a good jumping off point for discussions about other possible implementations and 3D worlds in general. Why are we so quick to say "It sucks." or "It will never work."? Are we really that pessimistic?

    If you don't like DustCity, talk about CrystalSpace. Talk about WorldForge. Talk about extending the Quake III engine to have similar functionality (and better graphics). There's plenty of interesting work going on in persistent 3D worlds. Why doesn't this article provoke that kind of discussion?

    --
    This .sig for rent.
    1. Re:Come on, guys! by herrd0kt0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      this article doesn't provoke the kind of discussion you talk about because we're all skeptics.

      remember HABITAT for the commodore 64? for quantumlink (now AOL), it was a persistent, customizable world. nice graphics for the time, great concept. it was turned into Club Caribe and launched with much fanfare. what have we learned from this foray into persistent online worlds? people want to collect tokens to buy stuff. like new heads. and they want to have sex online.

      how bout ultimate online? people want the same thing. everquest? dark age of camelot? name it-- it's the same. everyone wants power, fame, money, and sex.

      sure, you could launch yourself at more humble pursuits, but you'd be squashed out by the powergamers. even this would be turned into a game: have a nicest place, own the nicest stuff. or be the coolest.

      people in _snow crash_ liked the metaverse because if afforded them the opportunity to be something they're not. it allowed them to be somewhere else. but even when they were able to go beyond the world around them and into another, they were still limited by real-world contraints: if you couldn't afford the right stuff, you looked like poop in the metaverse.

      i guess what i'm trying to say is that the current mindset, and the current subset of the population who would engage themselves in this particular world, will probably just turn into the same crap the other game worlds have turned into. let me repeat that i think that this one _will_ be turned into a game by its players.

      does this mean it shouldn't be done? no. with time and good feeding, it might normalize and develop a population of users who can actually enjoy every aspect of the world.

  7. Is 3D the key? by si1k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lot of comments about metaverse-like worlds seem to center around the 3D engine and the quality of the graphics. But is that really the crucial aspect of the metaverse that we find appealing?

    One of the most fascinating parts of the metaverse was the way it offered an interactive version of the Internet under a single paradigm. Instead of having the wide range of protocols like HTTP and IRC offering a limited range of interactivity and services, it was all integrated. With the Net right now we can find interesting flat (or semi-interactive) documents on the web, we can play interactive games, or we can engage in primarily useless chatter on IRC.

    The metaverse in principle combined all of these principles into a single paradigm. You could go to a library and while reading a reference book, you could engage in mindless chatter (or interesting discussion) within the context of the library.

    I think that's a big key--keeping the context. That's what makes blogs with discussion areas (like slashdot) so interesting--we can discuss over the context of the article. But we really need an overlying metaphor, like the metaverse had, for unifying all the information, services, and forms of interaction.

    3D is not the key. It's just the glossy exterior that could bring such a paradigm to the next level IF such a paradigm really existed.

    If you're interested in that kind of thing... get in touch with me via msg on /.

    --

    byroniverse