I think in the original contest document, they stated that they'd purchase the required devlopment tools, eg. the torque engine (I think they should have called it the Newton-Metre engine, har har). Torque is a pretty nice engine really, good enough anyway, games aren't built on graphics alone. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a game with some Tribes-like aspects. I found Tribes fun mostly because of the challenge, and freedom. The challenge comes from the speed, and funny physics they employ (most people don't slide down hills at 100kph;)). Whenever you shoot your weapon at speed, just like real physics, it takes on the velocity you currently have. Aiming at your target isn't enough, or aiming where you think he'll be isn't enough, you have to aim such that you compensate for speed! It's really great fun, not to mention the fairly large map sizes, which give you pretty well all the running around room you could want. To make a game fun, I'd say you need a few things (from my point of view as a gamer anyway):
-it has to be hard enough, that you can be horrible at it to begin with, but eventually 'master' it and have some sense of accomplishment
-it has to have some innate sense of fun, all the typical fun qualities apply here: explosions, high speed, tension, humour, excessive brutality (not gruesome, but just enough for you to say "jeez, that was awfully painful looking")
-you should be able to play it for short periods of time, no sitting down for 2 hours just to make some marginal increase in progress. that's not fun, that's just repetition (everquest reference here really).
-if it is online, it should be VERY easy to be social. if people have friends in the game, they're more apt to play it, more apt to buy, etc.
-directly linked to the previous point, teamplay is important if it's online. online games really shine when you pretty well FORCE teamplay, because it makes people talk to each other, be more social, and overall have a better time! (which is what games are about right? having fun?)
-having said all that, it should have some sort of innovation. no one is expecting revolutionary work here, but at least make something that stands on it's own. dont' let anyone say "well, it's really like q3 and counterstrike put together" make them say "well.. uh.. well, it's really just like it is, hard to compare it to anything". I think that's important, because if they are forced to say that, THEN you know you've given them something they can't get anywhere else.
These are just what I can think of at the moment, but that's briefly what I find when I look at the games I really really played a lot, and truly liked. I'm actually quite excited to see what they can come up with, should be very interesting!
Well, checking the page for SpaceHoRSE, it seems they've added various functionality (TCP/IP play, 3d cut scenes) if that's your thing. Mind you, I haven't checked on the status of the C64 emulation scene lately, but I recall most emulators needing to run at normal C64 speed (or has a 'turbo' type feature been added, a la zsnes?) so if you want the game to start up in under 10 minutes, a clone might be good;)
Errr, I don't really think that's a feature comparison. That's more of a small selection of issues which KDE can appear to come out on top. I say appear, because some points seem to be based on what applications run under KDE. The office apps? The download manager? Just because KDE can run those apps doesn't mean that the UI is good. Then again, I can get a free office suite for WinXP as well, and a nice tabbed browser. Let's face it, even these points are moot, because applications don't make the UI (UI being the topic of the discussion). Some points you make are valid, multiple desktops, etc; but at least try to balance out your points. KDE by no means "wipes the floor with XP". XP does many things KDE doesn't and KDE does many things XP doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
I think in the original contest document, they stated that they'd purchase the required devlopment tools, eg. the torque engine (I think they should have called it the Newton-Metre engine, har har). Torque is a pretty nice engine really, good enough anyway, games aren't built on graphics alone. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a game with some Tribes-like aspects. I found Tribes fun mostly because of the challenge, and freedom. The challenge comes from the speed, and funny physics they employ (most people don't slide down hills at 100kph ;)). Whenever you shoot your weapon at speed, just like real physics, it takes on the velocity you currently have. Aiming at your target isn't enough, or aiming where you think he'll be isn't enough, you have to aim such that you compensate for speed! It's really great fun, not to mention the fairly large map sizes, which give you pretty well all the running around room you could want. To make a game fun, I'd say you need a few things (from my point of view as a gamer anyway):
-it has to be hard enough, that you can be horrible at it to begin with, but eventually 'master' it and have some sense of accomplishment
-it has to have some innate sense of fun, all the typical fun qualities apply here: explosions, high speed, tension, humour, excessive brutality (not gruesome, but just enough for you to say "jeez, that was awfully painful looking")
-you should be able to play it for short periods of time, no sitting down for 2 hours just to make some marginal increase in progress. that's not fun, that's just repetition (everquest reference here really).
-if it is online, it should be VERY easy to be social. if people have friends in the game, they're more apt to play it, more apt to buy, etc.
-directly linked to the previous point, teamplay is important if it's online. online games really shine when you pretty well FORCE teamplay, because it makes people talk to each other, be more social, and overall have a better time! (which is what games are about right? having fun?)
-having said all that, it should have some sort of innovation. no one is expecting revolutionary work here, but at least make something that stands on it's own. dont' let anyone say "well, it's really like q3 and counterstrike put together" make them say "well.. uh.. well, it's really just like it is, hard to compare it to anything". I think that's important, because if they are forced to say that, THEN you know you've given them something they can't get anywhere else.
These are just what I can think of at the moment, but that's briefly what I find when I look at the games I really really played a lot, and truly liked. I'm actually quite excited to see what they can come up with, should be very interesting!
Well, checking the page for SpaceHoRSE, it seems they've added various functionality (TCP/IP play, 3d cut scenes) if that's your thing. Mind you, I haven't checked on the status of the C64 emulation scene lately, but I recall most emulators needing to run at normal C64 speed (or has a 'turbo' type feature been added, a la zsnes?) so if you want the game to start up in under 10 minutes, a clone might be good ;)
Errr, I don't really think that's a feature comparison. That's more of a small selection of issues which KDE can appear to come out on top. I say appear, because some points seem to be based on what applications run under KDE. The office apps? The download manager? Just because KDE can run those apps doesn't mean that the UI is good. Then again, I can get a free office suite for WinXP as well, and a nice tabbed browser. Let's face it, even these points are moot, because applications don't make the UI (UI being the topic of the discussion). Some points you make are valid, multiple desktops, etc; but at least try to balance out your points. KDE by no means "wipes the floor with XP". XP does many things KDE doesn't and KDE does many things XP doesn't.