It seems to me like there should be some way to give players freedom and escape the grind at the same time. I want a way to get away from classes, factions, and anything else that pre-defines who you are in game. I would want a game that is entirely skill based, in order to get away from a level/numbers focused game. I think something closer to an online version of Oblivion would be really fun. I think it should be one EVE style single world. I want to be able to kill any NPC if I have the skill. For instance, if I have a decent amount of skill in stealth and archery, I want to be able to assassinate a shop keeper, steal what I want, and escape into the night. And there should be consequences to my actions as well. I think the idea of player bounties like in EVE is a great idea. Again, I think the punishment system devised in Oblivion is great. If you can commit a crime in secret then there is a good chance that you can get away scott free, but if you go killing NPCs or players in front of others you should get reported and have either a bounty put on your head or be pursued by the authorities. If you are caught, you go to jail and you loose a good deal of money and equipment and, on top of that, your skills decrease. If you continually grief OPENLY, you are going to be right back at newb skill, so griefers would have to get better and quieter, but that is fine because every would needs its murderers and thieves.
I would like to see an MMO that tried to reflect a realistic world instead of settling for the status quo. Let the players do whatever they want, just like in the real world, but have laws and consequences, just like in the real world. Let the players define who they want to be and how they choose to act.
I also think there should be a world story arc, which changes as time passes. The players could both participate in and disrupt the story. And maybe civilization crumbles and the world spirals into darkness, but online games are, if anything, evolution in progress. So maybe a year or so down the line a player decides to unite the people and rebuild the kingdom, a kingdom run by the players. And then it would be the players' job to protect civilization from demise. Or, maybe, the NPC heir to the throne rises and gathers a group of NPCs to help bring order back to the land. Who knows? Said ideas would require a group of GMs to help guide the world and keep things interesting.
One thing about traditional MMOs, take WoW for example. There is no way to become the most famous or most powerful person. Even the highest level players are only known in certain circles. You could complete the biggest, hardest quest, no statues are erected, no stories are told, and only a few people know who you are. The world needs to reflect the actions of the players and reward them for great deeds.
I am sure it sounds like I am just spouting off game ideas I would like to see, but I don't think it is beyond a developer's reach to achieve. Granted it would take a lot of time and forethought and it would not be easy to implement. But I think it could be done. I think if an online game could be made that had people coming back not to get the next best weapon or next level, but to participate in the story and in the world, it would be a very successful game. But that is just my opinion.
It is my hope that maybe, just maybe, this could spur developers to, instead of focusing on making a visually cutting-edge game using the latest and greatest hardware and APIs, start to focus on trying to make the most fun and innovative possible game using the "previous gen technology", if you will. Not to say that both can't be achieved, but I would say that invariably games tend to focus on one in favor of the other.
... but does anyone else here listen to hip hop to calm down? I find it particularly soothing when I am trying to get work done. Note that when I say hip hop, I don't mean the crap you hear on the radio. I mean underground sh*t like J Dilla, RJD2, Madlib, MF Doom, Mos Def, and Black Star. Ya know, intelligent hip hop.
I would speculate (key word) that Wii games cost less because the hardware itself is based on old technology. Just like the SNES was an enhanced version of the NES (extremely similar hardware), so is the Wii hardware extremely similar to the GameCube. Of course this doesn't apply to the controller. Because the hardware is similar, it should be just as difficult to develop a top notch Wii game as it was to develop a top notch Gamecube game. And since there is already a large tool and knowledge base for the Gamecube it allows developers to cut down development time and, thus, cut down the market price for games. At least that is what I believe to be the reason.
This sounds incredible and is just the direction I think hardware development, especially for games, needs to be moving. It is my belief that the biggest revolution that needs to happen for gaming needs to come in the form of more interactive I/O, since I think the pinnacle of a game experience is probably the HoloDeck from Star Trek. The BCI is great because it is a step in the right direction. Very exciting times, indeed!
You're right. There is a lot to be said for the breadth of topics one is exposed to at a liberal arts school, I know this first hand because I got a BA in psychology from one. And it is true that if one does not know how to adequately express one's self, his or her skills will seems somewhat diminished. And yes, I cannot and should not generalize my experience in a liberal arts CS program to those of every school. But, I will say that I went over the curriculum of the full BSCS at my school several times and many of the classes that are needed to teach the skills pertinent to game programming were not required, including linear algebra, physics with calculus, computer graphics, or graphics API programming. Now, maybe this was because of a lack of curriculum depth at my particular school. If your school does offer these and you are made aware that in order to program real time 2D or 3D apps these classes are recommended, then I would say you are attending a far more progressive school than I attended and it sounds like a good program.
If you are in a traditional liberal arts CS degree program at some school, you are not going to learn what it takes to make games, you are going to learn what it takes to be a utility programer. The fact is that traditional CS programs dont teahc you the math, languages, or algorithms that matter for game development. I know this because I went and got a minor in CS at a liberal arts school and am now getting another BS in Game programming from the singls best school for it in the country. We get linear algebra freshman year, we know Win33 C and C++ by the end of freshman year, and are doing graduate level work in cumputer graphics our sophomore year. On top of that, every year we (as teams) develop a full game which applies all our skills. For exaple, by the end of Sophomore year we code/create 2D games comparable to any early nintendo/SNES game. I am currently finifshing my sophomore year here and it is 10 times more intense than my previous degree. we work 20-22 unit semesters for 4 years and when we get out we have intimate understanding of physics, linear algebra, calculus, 2D and 3D computer graphics, game physiscs, Windows programming, and the moajor languages and their respective algorithms. This is why students here coming out with a BS are highly valued.
My advice to anyone in a traditional CS degree program is take as much physics and linear algebra classes as you can and study computer graphics in your spare time. Companies want employees with applicable skills and just knowing programing wont cut it. Traditional schools give you a taste of a lot of things but rarely make you get good at any. I think probably the best test of an outgoing grad looking to go into game development is if you can code up collision detection for an arbitrary convex models. It tests many pertinent skills and is an applicable skill. This is just my opinion though
I personally think the whole "Games for Windows" thing is terrible. For one thing it get's the uninitiated user thinking that any other game might not work for there machine. Second, it is a totally shameless f**king M$ plug, which is total b.s. And third, for any independent developers out there, it is stupid to have to fit some dumb ass constraints just to get a stupid little certification. It is like Microsoft is trying to slowly brainwash PC users, starting with Vista and "Games for Windows". That is why I like Steam, Valve is on the look out for good independent games getting made and they can offer them to the public without having to go through shifty publishers and marketing departments. Mark my words, the revolutionary PC games aren't going to be on the shelves at EB, or your local Fry's Electronic, they are going to be on steam or some other digital-only service. This is because the revolutionary games won't be made by 100 man teams for millions of dollars, they are going to be made by a group of 10 driven people who have the passion and the skill to make it happen. The revolutionary games won't come from developers with a marketing department or a PR team. They won't come from teams with connections to the big 5 publishers. In short: the revolutionary PC games will NOT be televised!!
Consoles sell more because console games prey on the impulse buyer. That is why they spend millions on marketing and product desing and placement, because when grandma is in the store looking for a birthday gift for lil' Jimmy, she is going to pick up the game with the prettiest box art. My beef with consoles, and why they will NEVER be better than a PC, is because the console hardware developers spend billions developing these state of the art machines that can only play a few core types of games: platformers, thrid person action, puzzle, and jrpg. How many GREAT console games do you own? and how many of them fall into these catagories? It is my opinion that ANY game on a console (with the exception of the wii) can be played on a pc but how many good rts games do you see on a console? Consoles are just too limiting in their scope of games. The problem with a lack of diverse types of PC games is not due to the PC limitations, it is due to the lack of imagination of PC developers, or at least the major ones.
Which brings me back to my main point: the great, imaginative, inspiring PC games will not be found in gamestop and will NOT be certified "Games for Windows", they will be made by indie developers and retailed digital-only, most likely on Steam because Valve knows what the f**k is up. And that is my (as a future indie PC developer) humble opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me like there should be some way to give players freedom and escape the grind at the same time. I want a way to get away from classes, factions, and anything else that pre-defines who you are in game. I would want a game that is entirely skill based, in order to get away from a level/numbers focused game. I think something closer to an online version of Oblivion would be really fun. I think it should be one EVE style single world. I want to be able to kill any NPC if I have the skill. For instance, if I have a decent amount of skill in stealth and archery, I want to be able to assassinate a shop keeper, steal what I want, and escape into the night. And there should be consequences to my actions as well. I think the idea of player bounties like in EVE is a great idea. Again, I think the punishment system devised in Oblivion is great. If you can commit a crime in secret then there is a good chance that you can get away scott free, but if you go killing NPCs or players in front of others you should get reported and have either a bounty put on your head or be pursued by the authorities. If you are caught, you go to jail and you loose a good deal of money and equipment and, on top of that, your skills decrease. If you continually grief OPENLY, you are going to be right back at newb skill, so griefers would have to get better and quieter, but that is fine because every would needs its murderers and thieves.
I would like to see an MMO that tried to reflect a realistic world instead of settling for the status quo. Let the players do whatever they want, just like in the real world, but have laws and consequences, just like in the real world. Let the players define who they want to be and how they choose to act.
I also think there should be a world story arc, which changes as time passes. The players could both participate in and disrupt the story. And maybe civilization crumbles and the world spirals into darkness, but online games are, if anything, evolution in progress. So maybe a year or so down the line a player decides to unite the people and rebuild the kingdom, a kingdom run by the players. And then it would be the players' job to protect civilization from demise. Or, maybe, the NPC heir to the throne rises and gathers a group of NPCs to help bring order back to the land. Who knows? Said ideas would require a group of GMs to help guide the world and keep things interesting.
One thing about traditional MMOs, take WoW for example. There is no way to become the most famous or most powerful person. Even the highest level players are only known in certain circles. You could complete the biggest, hardest quest, no statues are erected, no stories are told, and only a few people know who you are. The world needs to reflect the actions of the players and reward them for great deeds.
I am sure it sounds like I am just spouting off game ideas I would like to see, but I don't think it is beyond a developer's reach to achieve. Granted it would take a lot of time and forethought and it would not be easy to implement. But I think it could be done. I think if an online game could be made that had people coming back not to get the next best weapon or next level, but to participate in the story and in the world, it would be a very successful game. But that is just my opinion.
It is my hope that maybe, just maybe, this could spur developers to, instead of focusing on making a visually cutting-edge game using the latest and greatest hardware and APIs, start to focus on trying to make the most fun and innovative possible game using the "previous gen technology", if you will. Not to say that both can't be achieved, but I would say that invariably games tend to focus on one in favor of the other.
... but does anyone else here listen to hip hop to calm down? I find it particularly soothing when I am trying to get work done. Note that when I say hip hop, I don't mean the crap you hear on the radio. I mean underground sh*t like J Dilla, RJD2, Madlib, MF Doom, Mos Def, and Black Star. Ya know, intelligent hip hop.
I would speculate (key word) that Wii games cost less because the hardware itself is based on old technology. Just like the SNES was an enhanced version of the NES (extremely similar hardware), so is the Wii hardware extremely similar to the GameCube. Of course this doesn't apply to the controller. Because the hardware is similar, it should be just as difficult to develop a top notch Wii game as it was to develop a top notch Gamecube game. And since there is already a large tool and knowledge base for the Gamecube it allows developers to cut down development time and, thus, cut down the market price for games. At least that is what I believe to be the reason.
This sounds incredible and is just the direction I think hardware development, especially for games, needs to be moving. It is my belief that the biggest revolution that needs to happen for gaming needs to come in the form of more interactive I/O, since I think the pinnacle of a game experience is probably the HoloDeck from Star Trek. The BCI is great because it is a step in the right direction. Very exciting times, indeed!
You're right. There is a lot to be said for the breadth of topics one is exposed to at a liberal arts school, I know this first hand because I got a BA in psychology from one. And it is true that if one does not know how to adequately express one's self, his or her skills will seems somewhat diminished. And yes, I cannot and should not generalize my experience in a liberal arts CS program to those of every school. But, I will say that I went over the curriculum of the full BSCS at my school several times and many of the classes that are needed to teach the skills pertinent to game programming were not required, including linear algebra, physics with calculus, computer graphics, or graphics API programming. Now, maybe this was because of a lack of curriculum depth at my particular school. If your school does offer these and you are made aware that in order to program real time 2D or 3D apps these classes are recommended, then I would say you are attending a far more progressive school than I attended and it sounds like a good program.
If you are in a traditional liberal arts CS degree program at some school, you are not going to learn what it takes to make games, you are going to learn what it takes to be a utility programer. The fact is that traditional CS programs dont teahc you the math, languages, or algorithms that matter for game development. I know this because I went and got a minor in CS at a liberal arts school and am now getting another BS in Game programming from the singls best school for it in the country. We get linear algebra freshman year, we know Win33 C and C++ by the end of freshman year, and are doing graduate level work in cumputer graphics our sophomore year. On top of that, every year we (as teams) develop a full game which applies all our skills. For exaple, by the end of Sophomore year we code/create 2D games comparable to any early nintendo/SNES game. I am currently finifshing my sophomore year here and it is 10 times more intense than my previous degree. we work 20-22 unit semesters for 4 years and when we get out we have intimate understanding of physics, linear algebra, calculus, 2D and 3D computer graphics, game physiscs, Windows programming, and the moajor languages and their respective algorithms. This is why students here coming out with a BS are highly valued. My advice to anyone in a traditional CS degree program is take as much physics and linear algebra classes as you can and study computer graphics in your spare time. Companies want employees with applicable skills and just knowing programing wont cut it. Traditional schools give you a taste of a lot of things but rarely make you get good at any. I think probably the best test of an outgoing grad looking to go into game development is if you can code up collision detection for an arbitrary convex models. It tests many pertinent skills and is an applicable skill. This is just my opinion though
I personally think the whole "Games for Windows" thing is terrible. For one thing it get's the uninitiated user thinking that any other game might not work for there machine. Second, it is a totally shameless f**king M$ plug, which is total b.s. And third, for any independent developers out there, it is stupid to have to fit some dumb ass constraints just to get a stupid little certification. It is like Microsoft is trying to slowly brainwash PC users, starting with Vista and "Games for Windows". That is why I like Steam, Valve is on the look out for good independent games getting made and they can offer them to the public without having to go through shifty publishers and marketing departments. Mark my words, the revolutionary PC games aren't going to be on the shelves at EB, or your local Fry's Electronic, they are going to be on steam or some other digital-only service. This is because the revolutionary games won't be made by 100 man teams for millions of dollars, they are going to be made by a group of 10 driven people who have the passion and the skill to make it happen. The revolutionary games won't come from developers with a marketing department or a PR team. They won't come from teams with connections to the big 5 publishers. In short: the revolutionary PC games will NOT be televised!! Consoles sell more because console games prey on the impulse buyer. That is why they spend millions on marketing and product desing and placement, because when grandma is in the store looking for a birthday gift for lil' Jimmy, she is going to pick up the game with the prettiest box art. My beef with consoles, and why they will NEVER be better than a PC, is because the console hardware developers spend billions developing these state of the art machines that can only play a few core types of games: platformers, thrid person action, puzzle, and jrpg. How many GREAT console games do you own? and how many of them fall into these catagories? It is my opinion that ANY game on a console (with the exception of the wii) can be played on a pc but how many good rts games do you see on a console? Consoles are just too limiting in their scope of games. The problem with a lack of diverse types of PC games is not due to the PC limitations, it is due to the lack of imagination of PC developers, or at least the major ones. Which brings me back to my main point: the great, imaginative, inspiring PC games will not be found in gamestop and will NOT be certified "Games for Windows", they will be made by indie developers and retailed digital-only, most likely on Steam because Valve knows what the f**k is up. And that is my (as a future indie PC developer) humble opinion.