Re:I have a shorter Tetris implementation
on
Tetris In 140 Bytes
·
· Score: 1
Consider this: In a multiplayer game any condition that triggered victory for one player would by default also trigger defeat for every other player. Inversely any condition that triggers defeat for one player may trigger victory for one or more players. Thus any "Victory Condition" can also function as a "Defeat Condition" and vice versa.
Now consider the following points.
1) The game of Tetris has a state that ends in player defeat.
2) Victory conditions can trigger player defeat.
3) Victory conditions can be used trigger player defeat in Tetris.
Statement number 1 stands as a fact no one is disputing.
Statement 2 should have been adequately demonstrated above.
If statement 2 is true, then statement 3 is also true.
If statement 3 is true then it is only logical to conclude that Tetris has victory conditions, or the inverse equivalent, which are for all intents and purposes identical except in name.
Unless you are going to argue that victory conditions can under no circumstance trigger defeat for any player, there is no reason to continue this conversation. This is the point where I say you are arguing semantics just being an ass, and cease all further discourse with you. Have a pleasant day.
Re:I have a shorter Tetris implementation
on
Tetris In 140 Bytes
·
· Score: 1
>You still haven't addressed the fact that there is no victory condition in an endless game like some versions of Tetris and other similar puzzle games. Your only response has been to continuously claim that since there are versions which have victory conditions, all versions have victory conditions, which clearly isn't the case.
That is not at all what is happening. In the official standard Tetris rules the game ends after 200 lines, 30 levels, or, when the player's screen fills up with blocks. Just because some versions exist that changed the first two victory conditions does not mean that the third victory condition does not still exist. There are no versions of Tetris that do not end. Every version of Tetris has a piece of logic that exists to test for when the game ends. In the industry this segment of the game program that is a conditional statement that determines when the program changes a game's play state or triggers a response sequence is known in as a "victory condition". It is a conditional statement that governs victory. Defeat is the inverse of victory so they are lumped together, albeit in the same segment of the program, in the same section of the rulebook, or in the same category of an article. This is what I mean when I say that Tetris has "victory conditions". There are "conditions" in Tetris that arise and can be tested for, and those conditions triggers a "victory" or the inverse of such. "Victory" (or non-victory) in this context refers to the conclusion of a segment of the game process and the start of another.
>Most traditional games that have a victory condition end when that victory condition is reached, and any players who reached it have won.
A game of Football has a victory condition, but Football leagues also have seasons, with separate victory conditions. A team can win 3 games in a row, but not win the season championship. An army can win the battle but lose the war, because the battle has victory conditions while the war has differing victory conditions. Sand box games are a collection of encounters each with differing victory conditions. Each expansion in a MMO functions as a new campaign or 'season' .
>I think you're overreaching to make Progress Quest fit into those four categories. Interaction that's limited to starting the game up is not interaction in any real sense, in my opinion.
And here you are doing exactly what you accused me of doing. I could point out every one of those four design elements in any game you named, and you'd probably just refuse to acknowledge that the game contains those elements, so what's the point? Your opinion is wrong. Progress Quest is a game, with almost as much interaction as slot machines. If progress quest had a pay to play version that randomly awarded real-life cash the games would be almost exactly the same. Are you going to now claim that the slots are not a real game?
The game of Slot has rules (reel chances and payout tables), they have a goal (get the correct symbols to line up when the game ends), they have interaction (you start the game, by putting in a coin and pulling the lever), and they have challenge (try to win money).
>You can try to provide a neat all-encompassing definition of what a game is, but the reality is that the edges of that definition will remain somewhat fuzzy.
I go by the industry standard definition of what a game is, in the context of the video game industry, as taught in curriculum throughout accredited universities. You could claim that a game is really more or less then what the definition I go by is, you can claim that victory conditions are not what I say they are, but your words contradict everything I have ever seen on the subject.
Re:I have a shorter Tetris implementation
on
Tetris In 140 Bytes
·
· Score: 1
There is an article on gamasutra entitled "Basic Game Theory: Core Elements" by Gregory Gauthreaux. He makes an adamant attempt to explain the concepts in laymans terms, because apparently it is hard to grasp for people unfamiliar with the industry.
"There are four elements that all games must have... They must be fun [challenge], they must have structure [rules], they must have a goal [victory conditions], and they must have at least one player [interaction]... Depending on whom you talk with, some elements can be added to the list but never will these elements be omitted."
Even the so called 'zero player games' such as core wars or progress quest have these elements. Progress quest has a host of complex rules, the challenge arises from accruing score, the goal is to reach the maximum progress, and the interaction while limited to the player creating a character and keeping the client running, is clearly present. The only thing that differs between PQ and conventional MMOs like WoW is the range of interaction available to users. Wow has a host of complex rules, the challenge arises from gaining renown and gear to raise your gearscore or whatever , the goal is to reach the maximum level and finish all the campaign storyline quests, and the interaction comes from creating a character and running instanced raids and arenas.
The difference between a MMO and traditional game is not a lack of victory conditions, but rather a different development and release cycle. The Zelda RPG franchise releases a new self contained game every few years, each containing distinct challenges, rules, interactions and victory conditions,.A MMO in that same time will release expansion content equivalent to a whole new game, with each expansion containing distinct new challenges, rules, interactions and victory conditions. MMO games do end, the same way that traditional games like skyrim ends. Endgame mmo characters are left with instanced content that contains explicit goals, and player defined implicit goals, much the same way that the player in skyrim who has finished the story and won the game can decide to still play and run that same dungeon they have already beaten over and over again and again.
Re:I have a shorter Tetris implementation
on
Tetris In 140 Bytes
·
· Score: 1
This conversation reminds me of when I used to work as a web developer. Just because a client has used web sites before (and maybe even designed a website in front page) does not mean they know the correct technical terminology or industry standards.
Multiplayer Tetris has the same victory condition as single player Tetris. You would know this is you have ever written an implementation of Tetris. The game ends when the last person loses. The book "Game Development Essentials" by Jeannie Novak has a great chapter on the subject and specifically mentions Tetris in reference to victory conditions. In that book it states that Tetris does not have any explicit victory conditions, but that instead it has an explicit loss condition (which is a sub-type of victory condition). The book also mentions the fact that Tetris contains several types of implicit victory conditions that revolve around scoring.
Loss avoidance is a victory condition. You are winning until the moment that you lose. Haven't you ever seen a football game where one side is up in points and thus winning, until the very end when they lose, because the other team makes a comeback and score more points before the time runs out? It is a very common question "who is winning?". A team can be winning the match for several rounds, but lose the game in the end. Same principal applies to Tetris. A Tetris player can win several rounds, but lose the game when they trigger the loss avoidance victory condition.
Any well run rpg consists of individual modules that do indeed have goals and victory conditions. Individual questlines in a MMO RPG have goals and victory conditions. Instanced PvP has explicit goals and victory conditions. Open world PvP has the implicit goal of not dying to other players. PvE has goals and victory conditions as well. You can lose a match in a Warcraft arena. You can fail an escort or defend mission.
If you are using RPGs as examples of whole classes of games that have no victory conditions then you are wrong again. I do not care what you have done, your words directly contradict the large body of established works by industry veterans who have actually produced material they are not embarrassed to mention by name. When I refer to a a victory condition I am using the industry accepted terminology. I was correct when I said you would not even know a victory condition when you see one... but don't let facts get in the way of your overinflated sense of self worth.
Re:I have a shorter Tetris implementation
on
Tetris In 140 Bytes
·
· Score: 1
You could list games that lack some or all of those elements, not because the games actually lack those elements, but rather because you lack knowledge of what those elements are. Did you even read the page on game mechanics? Victory conditions are a game mechanic. Goals are a type of victory condition. Loss avoidance is a type of victory condition. If your only objective is loss avoidance then your only goal is to not lose. Tetris can be played multiplayer using the exact same victory conditions as are in the single player game. The last person to trigger the loss avoidance algorithm in a pvp tetris match is the victor, the only added rule in tetris pvp is that each row cleared by a player adds one row to the bottom of every other player. You are flat out wrong if you insist that tetris has no victory conditions, and if you have to ask why a game needs victory conditions then you are obviously not a trained professional, nor are you qualified to make informed comments about the subject.
Tetris has victory conditions. Those victory conditions are a specific subset knows in the industry as "Loss Avoidance". Do you know there is a professional game development industry with standard terminology and established practices? There are universities that have programs that award a degree in game development, and what they will teach you in those universities is summarised in that wikipedia article on game mechanics. If wikipedia is not credible enough for you there is a large body of academia on the subject available elsewhere, perhaps you should read some of it.
Re:I have a shorter Tetris implementation
on
Tetris In 140 Bytes
·
· Score: 1
Tetris uses loss avoidance victory condition mechanics - you lose when the screen fills up with blocks. If you are unfamiliar with basic game mechanics you should read the wikipedia page on victory conditions. Also if you are unfamiliar with the basic elements as to what constitutes a game then perhaps you should read the wikipedia page on games too. Quote wikipedia "Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction." Victory (or loss) conditions are goals, and a score system provides challenge. The demo has rules and interaction but lacks the other 2 key components that define a game. With only 2 of 4 components, it is not really a game.
There is no game that exists that lacks these four basic elements, because without these 4 elements it is not a game.
The same people who think a diverse collection of loosely affiliated liberal scientists are smart enough to participate in a global conspiracy also insist that tight-nit black budget conservative agencies within US government are too dumb to be capable of doing anything underhanded without having at least one member come forward to reveal everything.
If the reason the moon landings or 9/11 are not a hoax is because too many people would have to be involved to fake it, then Global warming is also not a hoax. The global scientific community is a lot bigger then NASA, FEMA, and the 9/11 commission put together, and surely someone would have come forward by now with proof that the global scientific community is conspiring to hoax the world about global warming.
Re:I have a shorter Tetris implementation
on
Tetris In 140 Bytes
·
· Score: 1
That is the first thing I thought when I looked at the code. The answer to the question "Is it possible to write a JavaScript program in no more than a tweet's length?" is yes, but that tetris-like demo is not proof. It is not even a real game since there are no victory conditions or score. It has no usefulness besides a demo, and since they hid code in external functions it's usefulness as a demonstration is insubstantial.
Hello World is enough proof. Hello World is no more then a tweets length, and is actually useful to people learning javascript. The only thing 140 byte tetris will be useful for, I think, is collecting ad views for it's authors website.
I totally agree that a good story can enrich a game, but I do not agree with your assertion that 'Twitch' games are not immersive or are somehow incapable of having a good story . Twitch is a design choice that has nothing to do with story, immersion, replay value, or anything else aside from difficulty curve perhaps.
One of my all time favorite games is called Gunmetal. Released in 1998 for the PC it was the first and last game by the indie studio Mad Genius Software. It is still to this day one of the fastest and most twitched-out games ever made; a shooter so fast and so twitchy that it included an aim bot built in to the interface. At the time of its release it was almost universally panned by critics and derided by users for being a cheap low budget doom-clone twitch shooter.
I completely disagreed. There was nothing cheap about the game, it was just super fast, with players moving at 200mph across maps that took an average of 3 seconds to traverse, armed with auto-locking weapons so powerful they inflict enough damage to one shot kill any thing they hit.
It was a twitch game but not a doom clone. It had something doom did not have, and that is a good story. Everything about the story was amazing, from the atmosphere and setting, the background, the pacing, everything, all suburb.
The game alternated between mission zones and headquarters, telling the story through briefings and meetings, conversations with other soldiers in the rec-room, emails passed between support staff, clients and contracts. During the missions there were numerous objectives that continuously changed as characters and factions betrayed each other and unexpected events occurred. And of course there is the secret game in the terminal where you upgrade your weapons and armor - a side scroller called "Gandhi Kong" where the player as Gandhi "uses the principles of passive resistance to save a village from a marauding ape."
So, yeah. Not only was the plot masterfully crafted, but historical and philosophical elements were woven into it in such a manner that my natural curiosity was peaked to such extent that after I was finished with the game I began to explore the ideas expressed by the story. It took me quite a while to understand the concepts that were quoted so many times in the game but once I did, well.... let's just say that the story in a 'twitch' shooter had a profound effect on me.
-a short while later heavily armed men wearing black tactical outfits burst through a door
-there is the sound of a short but intense burst of small arms fire, leaving a mangled corpse laying on top the shattered ruins of a mysterious black box
-fox news runs a report about how authorities foiled a major terrorist plot to crash aircraft into skyscrapers
-military funding is increased again
The thing is, you can't copyright game mechanics. You can copyright an implementation of the mechanics, but not the mechanics themselves. For example you can write a rulebook that explains your game's mechanics and your competitors will be unable to copy your rulebook verbatim, however there is no law preventing them from re-writing your rulebook in their own words, and publishing a game that uses the exact same mechanics, and as long as they don't use any of your copyrighted text or images you have no legal recourse.
Same thing with software. You can write the most innovative piece of software ever made, but your competitors can clone every feature your product has and as long as they do not use any actual code or graphics from your product there is nothing you can do to stop them.
Ref. Warzone vs. Warhammer, Navigator vs Explorer, Doom vs Doom Clones, etc, etc...
We have an operating 5th gen fighter?
Last I heard the entire fleet of F22s was grounded again after a bunch of pilots died in crashes due to design flaws...
About five years ago I was forced to abandon development of a project I started called 'Vassal 40k', under threat of legal action by Games Workshop. After I received the takedown request I deleted all files I had that pertained to the project, removed all links to it from sites I was hosting, and terminated the bit torrent seeds on my fileserver.
A few minutes ago I found a torrent for Vassal 40k on Pirate Bay.
Since I include complete source in all my distributions, it was easy for different people over the years to take over the project and add new stuff. Every few months while browsing the web I will find a video on youtube of people playing, or read a blog where someone has used it to write a battle report. Several times over the years I almost downloaded it. Then I imagine that having those files on my computer might be enough justification for armed men to kick down my door and take everything I own at gunpoint.
The incident has left me with little desire to play Warhammer 40k, but I do not support the actions of Pirate Bay. As a developer I believe that the rights of copyright holders should be respected. I publish my personal projects under Open Source licenses and would be pretty mad if I found out someone was in violation. I honestly think that Vassal 40k, the project I spent months of my time coding, testing, and creating art for, should be taken down off Pirate Bay and people should never use it again.
If Games Workshop does not want us spending our time developing games for their IP as fans, we shouldn't. Instead spend our time creating our own original open source game content as competitors.
Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar was an open ended role playing game designed with an "ethically-nuanced, story-driven approach", and it came out in 1985 for the Apple II.
The objective of the game is to lead a virtuous life, and become the spiritual leader of the world of Britannia.
Yeah there are monsters and stuff, but all of the quests are ethical dilemmas and you get points for doing things like helping the poor...
>Once the stigma that a computer belongs in it's own little room tucked away and can't be next to your big screen TV dies out, I really see both the Xbox and the PS dying out. You may scoff at this, but it's true
I think that is why Sony is transitioning the playstation brand away from a single device and into a licensed family of devices with a supporting software platform - soon in addition to the playstation phone, we might see the playstation tablet, the ps pc, or the playstation laptop, etc...
You can already access the Playstation store from a PC, all they need to do is include a way to play playstation games on a pc. After all you can play Halo 3 on Microsoft Live using a Sony PC, why can't you play Killzone 3 on Playstation Network using a Sony PC?
Which characters in the opening movie did you care about? The nameless pirate sith? The ninja jedi? Or was it the cowboy bounty hunter, who happened to own the fastest ship in the galaxy? Was it the girl with the jetpack? She was so hot, i totally cared about her? what was her name, anyway? In fact, what were any of their names? I was watching some epic battle between random people who i've never seen before, and then boom, I wasn't anymore. Turns out none of the characters I created had anything to do with any of the characters from the movie. I played for 2 hours and I didn't see any of them anywhere.
I played the TOR beta a few weeks ago. KOTOR started you out as a hero of the republic in the mist of a battle between the two most powerful people in the galaxy, with the fate of the entire universe resting in your hands. The game literally starts with a bang; huge explosions are the first thing you see, before you are instructed that the ship you are on is about to explode, and are directed to the escape pods. There is an immediate sense of urgency, tons of action, and memorable characters. I was hooked from the first line of dialog.
TOR starts out with 20 min of loadscreens and prerendered CGI cutscenes featuring an endless stream of unnamed forgettable characters and overused cliches. Ninja jedi, pirate sith and cowboy bounty hunters. Then they let you create your character.
There are 4 classes for each side, and 4 races each class can choose. Each race has male and female, 4 body types, 6 heads, an extremely limited slider for eye colour and skin colour, and the option to chose between a few different tattoos and accessories. All of which are incredibly ugly. I wanted to be a twilek bounty hunter, but that combination is not available so right off the bat I had to make a choice between playing a class I didn't want, or a race I didn't want. After 10 min of exploring all the different choices I settled on the least ugly of my options, a cyborg bounty hunter. Who turns out has nothing to do with any of the people shown in the opening cutscene. Instead you start out as a low level nobody, working for some other low level nobody, doing something that happens every year.
The star wars scroll informs us that the main story line centers on an event known as the great hunt, which is the space bounty hunter equivalent to the super bowl. Every year all the bounty hunters get together and hunt stuff. Not exactly the most exciting plotline, but whatever, lets get to the blasting people, right? Not quite. Pan camera to landing spaceship. Exit my bumbling teen character, who makes his way through a bustling starport to the bounty hunters office, I guess.
After 15 min of meaningless dialog with wooden characters and exploring the starting area I get my first mission. I have to rescue a someones brother from a gang. So I head out and on my way I run into someone who has another quest for me. So I stop, and converse with the fellow, and convince him to allow me to assist him in his great task. The task of course, is to kill 0/6 mobs.
So I head out into the street and down an ally towards where my quest indicator is leading me. I see a group of thugs standing idle in front of the door I am supposed to go into. So this is it, I draw my blaster and like Han Solo, I shoot first! 45 min into the game I kill my first mob. Gunned down in cold blood, from beyond its agro radius. It respawns almost immediately, so I kill it 5 more times. Quest complete! I level up. Then I run through the door convince the gang members inside to free person I was sent to rescue. I head back, killing a few more people on the way. I turn in the quest, I level up.
I am totally bored at this point, and decide that bounty hunter may have not been the best choice. So I reroll, and try another character. Sith inquisitor, twilek. Maybe this will be more interesting? It is not. It is the exact same quests, but in a different setting. Instead of a city and gang members, its a sith temple and slugs.
Typical conversation...
Questgiver: So are you the new guy?
Option1 : Yes, I am here to help!(+1 lightside)
Option2 : I guess I am.
Option3 : Yes, and if you cross me I'll kill you.(+1 darkside)
Questgiver: Well I just hope you good enough for my quest.
Option1 : Yes, I am up to the task!(+1 lightside)
Option2 : I guess I am.
Option3 : Yes, I am. And if you cross me I'll kill you.(+1 darkside)
All the ingame cutscenes suffer from horrible pop-in, and have a global chat overlay. If you are going to break immersion why even have the cutscene to begin with? The h
Your point is invalid, as the US would have collapsed a long time before Bush if they stayed with pure capitalism. The only thing you can deduce from this fact is that hybrid systems that merge aspects of both communism and capitalism are far superior to pure implementations of either. Bush was not the first one who abandoned free market principles. You have lived your entire life under a tightly regulated market controlled by a hybrid government. You have never lived in a free market. You have grown up in a mixed economy in which both the state and private sector direct the economy. This is not pure capitalism.
Or are you going to argue that the programs imposed on the free market introduced in the "New Deal" such as the Social Security Act, Fair Labor Standards and the creation of labor unions were built on capitalist ideals?
Tron used around 12 minutes of rendered CGI in the entire movie, mostly for static background shots. Almost all of the special effects were made using backlit animation.
The first movie to use 100% CGI instead traditional animation styles was The Last Starfighter.
What part of "it's the exact same thing that happens on the Communist side of the argument" don't you understand?
China "abandoned communist principles to save communism". A high ranking Chinese official was once quoted as saying "We will try everything. What works, we will call Communism". The current modern implementations of both communism and capitalism are functionally identical.
Stop clutching to the archaic belief system that your parents indoctrinated you into from birth. It has dragged you down so far the point is completely over your head.
Because smartphones and ipads are a much better gaming platform, right? If Lord British is correct instead of crap console ports, you will get crap cellphone and ipad ports.
They changed that. Animal Planet does not make shows about animals anymore. They make shows about people who like and or work with animals. I have not watched much since they made that change. I am however a fan of Investigation Discovery, aka the Murder Channel.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider this: In a multiplayer game any condition that triggered victory for one player would by default also trigger defeat for every other player. Inversely any condition that triggers defeat for one player may trigger victory for one or more players. Thus any "Victory Condition" can also function as a "Defeat Condition" and vice versa.
Now consider the following points.
1) The game of Tetris has a state that ends in player defeat.
2) Victory conditions can trigger player defeat.
3) Victory conditions can be used trigger player defeat in Tetris.
Statement number 1 stands as a fact no one is disputing.
Statement 2 should have been adequately demonstrated above.
If statement 2 is true, then statement 3 is also true.
If statement 3 is true then it is only logical to conclude that Tetris has victory conditions, or the inverse equivalent, which are for all intents and purposes identical except in name.
Unless you are going to argue that victory conditions can under no circumstance trigger defeat for any player, there is no reason to continue this conversation. This is the point where I say you are arguing semantics just being an ass, and cease all further discourse with you. Have a pleasant day.
>You still haven't addressed the fact that there is no victory condition in an endless game like some versions of Tetris and other similar puzzle games. Your only response has been to continuously claim that since there are versions which have victory conditions, all versions have victory conditions, which clearly isn't the case.
That is not at all what is happening. In the official standard Tetris rules the game ends after 200 lines, 30 levels, or, when the player's screen fills up with blocks. Just because some versions exist that changed the first two victory conditions does not mean that the third victory condition does not still exist. There are no versions of Tetris that do not end. Every version of Tetris has a piece of logic that exists to test for when the game ends. In the industry this segment of the game program that is a conditional statement that determines when the program changes a game's play state or triggers a response sequence is known in as a "victory condition". It is a conditional statement that governs victory. Defeat is the inverse of victory so they are lumped together, albeit in the same segment of the program, in the same section of the rulebook, or in the same category of an article. This is what I mean when I say that Tetris has "victory conditions". There are "conditions" in Tetris that arise and can be tested for, and those conditions triggers a "victory" or the inverse of such. "Victory" (or non-victory) in this context refers to the conclusion of a segment of the game process and the start of another.
>Most traditional games that have a victory condition end when that victory condition is reached, and any players who reached it have won.
A game of Football has a victory condition, but Football leagues also have seasons, with separate victory conditions. A team can win 3 games in a row, but not win the season championship. An army can win the battle but lose the war, because the battle has victory conditions while the war has differing victory conditions. Sand box games are a collection of encounters each with differing victory conditions. Each expansion in a MMO functions as a new campaign or 'season' .
>I think you're overreaching to make Progress Quest fit into those four categories. Interaction that's limited to starting the game up is not interaction in any real sense, in my opinion.
And here you are doing exactly what you accused me of doing. I could point out every one of those four design elements in any game you named, and you'd probably just refuse to acknowledge that the game contains those elements, so what's the point? Your opinion is wrong. Progress Quest is a game, with almost as much interaction as slot machines. If progress quest had a pay to play version that randomly awarded real-life cash the games would be almost exactly the same. Are you going to now claim that the slots are not a real game?
The game of Slot has rules (reel chances and payout tables), they have a goal (get the correct symbols to line up when the game ends), they have interaction (you start the game, by putting in a coin and pulling the lever), and they have challenge (try to win money).
>You can try to provide a neat all-encompassing definition of what a game is, but the reality is that the edges of that definition will remain somewhat fuzzy.
I go by the industry standard definition of what a game is, in the context of the video game industry, as taught in curriculum throughout accredited universities. You could claim that a game is really more or less then what the definition I go by is, you can claim that victory conditions are not what I say they are, but your words contradict everything I have ever seen on the subject.
There is an article on gamasutra entitled "Basic Game Theory: Core Elements" by Gregory Gauthreaux. He makes an adamant attempt to explain the concepts in laymans terms, because apparently it is hard to grasp for people unfamiliar with the industry.
"There are four elements that all games must have... They must be fun [challenge], they must have structure [rules], they must have a goal [victory conditions], and they must have at least one player [interaction]... Depending on whom you talk with, some elements can be added to the list but never will these elements be omitted."
Even the so called 'zero player games' such as core wars or progress quest have these elements. Progress quest has a host of complex rules, the challenge arises from accruing score, the goal is to reach the maximum progress, and the interaction while limited to the player creating a character and keeping the client running, is clearly present. The only thing that differs between PQ and conventional MMOs like WoW is the range of interaction available to users. Wow has a host of complex rules, the challenge arises from gaining renown and gear to raise your gearscore or whatever , the goal is to reach the maximum level and finish all the campaign storyline quests, and the interaction comes from creating a character and running instanced raids and arenas.
The difference between a MMO and traditional game is not a lack of victory conditions, but rather a different development and release cycle. The Zelda RPG franchise releases a new self contained game every few years, each containing distinct challenges, rules, interactions and victory conditions,.A MMO in that same time will release expansion content equivalent to a whole new game, with each expansion containing distinct new challenges, rules, interactions and victory conditions. MMO games do end, the same way that traditional games like skyrim ends. Endgame mmo characters are left with instanced content that contains explicit goals, and player defined implicit goals, much the same way that the player in skyrim who has finished the story and won the game can decide to still play and run that same dungeon they have already beaten over and over again and again.
This conversation reminds me of when I used to work as a web developer. Just because a client has used web sites before (and maybe even designed a website in front page) does not mean they know the correct technical terminology or industry standards.
Multiplayer Tetris has the same victory condition as single player Tetris. You would know this is you have ever written an implementation of Tetris. The game ends when the last person loses. The book "Game Development Essentials" by Jeannie Novak has a great chapter on the subject and specifically mentions Tetris in reference to victory conditions. In that book it states that Tetris does not have any explicit victory conditions, but that instead it has an explicit loss condition (which is a sub-type of victory condition). The book also mentions the fact that Tetris contains several types of implicit victory conditions that revolve around scoring.
Loss avoidance is a victory condition. You are winning until the moment that you lose. Haven't you ever seen a football game where one side is up in points and thus winning, until the very end when they lose, because the other team makes a comeback and score more points before the time runs out? It is a very common question "who is winning?". A team can be winning the match for several rounds, but lose the game in the end. Same principal applies to Tetris. A Tetris player can win several rounds, but lose the game when they trigger the loss avoidance victory condition.
Any well run rpg consists of individual modules that do indeed have goals and victory conditions. Individual questlines in a MMO RPG have goals and victory conditions. Instanced PvP has explicit goals and victory conditions. Open world PvP has the implicit goal of not dying to other players. PvE has goals and victory conditions as well. You can lose a match in a Warcraft arena. You can fail an escort or defend mission.
If you are using RPGs as examples of whole classes of games that have no victory conditions then you are wrong again. I do not care what you have done, your words directly contradict the large body of established works by industry veterans who have actually produced material they are not embarrassed to mention by name. When I refer to a a victory condition I am using the industry accepted terminology. I was correct when I said you would not even know a victory condition when you see one... but don't let facts get in the way of your overinflated sense of self worth.
You could list games that lack some or all of those elements, not because the games actually lack those elements, but rather because you lack knowledge of what those elements are. Did you even read the page on game mechanics? Victory conditions are a game mechanic. Goals are a type of victory condition. Loss avoidance is a type of victory condition. If your only objective is loss avoidance then your only goal is to not lose. Tetris can be played multiplayer using the exact same victory conditions as are in the single player game. The last person to trigger the loss avoidance algorithm in a pvp tetris match is the victor, the only added rule in tetris pvp is that each row cleared by a player adds one row to the bottom of every other player. You are flat out wrong if you insist that tetris has no victory conditions, and if you have to ask why a game needs victory conditions then you are obviously not a trained professional, nor are you qualified to make informed comments about the subject.
Tetris has victory conditions. Those victory conditions are a specific subset knows in the industry as "Loss Avoidance". Do you know there is a professional game development industry with standard terminology and established practices? There are universities that have programs that award a degree in game development, and what they will teach you in those universities is summarised in that wikipedia article on game mechanics. If wikipedia is not credible enough for you there is a large body of academia on the subject available elsewhere, perhaps you should read some of it.
Tetris uses loss avoidance victory condition mechanics - you lose when the screen fills up with blocks. If you are unfamiliar with basic game mechanics you should read the wikipedia page on victory conditions. Also if you are unfamiliar with the basic elements as to what constitutes a game then perhaps you should read the wikipedia page on games too. Quote wikipedia "Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction." Victory (or loss) conditions are goals, and a score system provides challenge. The demo has rules and interaction but lacks the other 2 key components that define a game. With only 2 of 4 components, it is not really a game.
There is no game that exists that lacks these four basic elements, because without these 4 elements it is not a game.
The same people who think a diverse collection of loosely affiliated liberal scientists are smart enough to participate in a global conspiracy also insist that tight-nit black budget conservative agencies within US government are too dumb to be capable of doing anything underhanded without having at least one member come forward to reveal everything.
If the reason the moon landings or 9/11 are not a hoax is because too many people would have to be involved to fake it, then Global warming is also not a hoax. The global scientific community is a lot bigger then NASA, FEMA, and the 9/11 commission put together, and surely someone would have come forward by now with proof that the global scientific community is conspiring to hoax the world about global warming.
That is the first thing I thought when I looked at the code. The answer to the question "Is it possible to write a JavaScript program in no more than a tweet's length?" is yes, but that tetris-like demo is not proof. It is not even a real game since there are no victory conditions or score. It has no usefulness besides a demo, and since they hid code in external functions it's usefulness as a demonstration is insubstantial.
Hello World is enough proof. Hello World is no more then a tweets length, and is actually useful to people learning javascript. The only thing 140 byte tetris will be useful for, I think, is collecting ad views for it's authors website.
I totally agree that a good story can enrich a game, but I do not agree with your assertion that 'Twitch' games are not immersive or are somehow incapable of having a good story . Twitch is a design choice that has nothing to do with story, immersion, replay value, or anything else aside from difficulty curve perhaps.
One of my all time favorite games is called Gunmetal. Released in 1998 for the PC it was the first and last game by the indie studio Mad Genius Software. It is still to this day one of the fastest and most twitched-out games ever made; a shooter so fast and so twitchy that it included an aim bot built in to the interface. At the time of its release it was almost universally panned by critics and derided by users for being a cheap low budget doom-clone twitch shooter.
I completely disagreed. There was nothing cheap about the game, it was just super fast, with players moving at 200mph across maps that took an average of 3 seconds to traverse, armed with auto-locking weapons so powerful they inflict enough damage to one shot kill any thing they hit. It was a twitch game but not a doom clone. It had something doom did not have, and that is a good story. Everything about the story was amazing, from the atmosphere and setting, the background, the pacing, everything, all suburb.
The game alternated between mission zones and headquarters, telling the story through briefings and meetings, conversations with other soldiers in the rec-room, emails passed between support staff, clients and contracts. During the missions there were numerous objectives that continuously changed as characters and factions betrayed each other and unexpected events occurred. And of course there is the secret game in the terminal where you upgrade your weapons and armor - a side scroller called "Gandhi Kong" where the player as Gandhi "uses the principles of passive resistance to save a village from a marauding ape."
So, yeah. Not only was the plot masterfully crafted, but historical and philosophical elements were woven into it in such a manner that my natural curiosity was peaked to such extent that after I was finished with the game I began to explore the ideas expressed by the story. It took me quite a while to understand the concepts that were quoted so many times in the game but once I did, well.... let's just say that the story in a 'twitch' shooter had a profound effect on me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dp2_txz7M8&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunmetal_(PC)
-a short while later heavily armed men wearing black tactical outfits burst through a door
-there is the sound of a short but intense burst of small arms fire, leaving a mangled corpse laying on top the shattered ruins of a mysterious black box
-fox news runs a report about how authorities foiled a major terrorist plot to crash aircraft into skyscrapers
-military funding is increased again
The thing is, you can't copyright game mechanics. You can copyright an implementation of the mechanics, but not the mechanics themselves. For example you can write a rulebook that explains your game's mechanics and your competitors will be unable to copy your rulebook verbatim, however there is no law preventing them from re-writing your rulebook in their own words, and publishing a game that uses the exact same mechanics, and as long as they don't use any of your copyrighted text or images you have no legal recourse.
Same thing with software. You can write the most innovative piece of software ever made, but your competitors can clone every feature your product has and as long as they do not use any actual code or graphics from your product there is nothing you can do to stop them.
Ref. Warzone vs. Warhammer, Navigator vs Explorer, Doom vs Doom Clones, etc, etc...
"Massive" is one size class below "Gargantuan" according to 4th edition.
We have an operating 5th gen fighter? Last I heard the entire fleet of F22s was grounded again after a bunch of pilots died in crashes due to design flaws...
I am starting to think OP is a stealth guerilla marketing astroturf slashvertisement for elance.com...
About five years ago I was forced to abandon development of a project I started called 'Vassal 40k', under threat of legal action by Games Workshop. After I received the takedown request I deleted all files I had that pertained to the project, removed all links to it from sites I was hosting, and terminated the bit torrent seeds on my fileserver.
A few minutes ago I found a torrent for Vassal 40k on Pirate Bay.
Since I include complete source in all my distributions, it was easy for different people over the years to take over the project and add new stuff. Every few months while browsing the web I will find a video on youtube of people playing, or read a blog where someone has used it to write a battle report. Several times over the years I almost downloaded it. Then I imagine that having those files on my computer might be enough justification for armed men to kick down my door and take everything I own at gunpoint.
The incident has left me with little desire to play Warhammer 40k, but I do not support the actions of Pirate Bay. As a developer I believe that the rights of copyright holders should be respected. I publish my personal projects under Open Source licenses and would be pretty mad if I found out someone was in violation. I honestly think that Vassal 40k, the project I spent months of my time coding, testing, and creating art for, should be taken down off Pirate Bay and people should never use it again.
If Games Workshop does not want us spending our time developing games for their IP as fans, we shouldn't. Instead spend our time creating our own original open source game content as competitors.
Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar was an open ended role playing game designed with an "ethically-nuanced, story-driven approach", and it came out in 1985 for the Apple II. The objective of the game is to lead a virtuous life, and become the spiritual leader of the world of Britannia.
Yeah there are monsters and stuff, but all of the quests are ethical dilemmas and you get points for doing things like helping the poor...
>Once the stigma that a computer belongs in it's own little room tucked away and can't be next to your big screen TV dies out, I really see both the Xbox and the PS dying out. You may scoff at this, but it's true
I think that is why Sony is transitioning the playstation brand away from a single device and into a licensed family of devices with a supporting software platform - soon in addition to the playstation phone, we might see the playstation tablet, the ps pc, or the playstation laptop, etc...
You can already access the Playstation store from a PC, all they need to do is include a way to play playstation games on a pc. After all you can play Halo 3 on Microsoft Live using a Sony PC, why can't you play Killzone 3 on Playstation Network using a Sony PC?
Which characters in the opening movie did you care about? The nameless pirate sith? The ninja jedi? Or was it the cowboy bounty hunter, who happened to own the fastest ship in the galaxy? Was it the girl with the jetpack? She was so hot, i totally cared about her? what was her name, anyway? In fact, what were any of their names? I was watching some epic battle between random people who i've never seen before, and then boom, I wasn't anymore. Turns out none of the characters I created had anything to do with any of the characters from the movie. I played for 2 hours and I didn't see any of them anywhere.
I played the TOR beta a few weeks ago. KOTOR started you out as a hero of the republic in the mist of a battle between the two most powerful people in the galaxy, with the fate of the entire universe resting in your hands. The game literally starts with a bang; huge explosions are the first thing you see, before you are instructed that the ship you are on is about to explode, and are directed to the escape pods. There is an immediate sense of urgency, tons of action, and memorable characters. I was hooked from the first line of dialog.
TOR starts out with 20 min of loadscreens and prerendered CGI cutscenes featuring an endless stream of unnamed forgettable characters and overused cliches. Ninja jedi, pirate sith and cowboy bounty hunters. Then they let you create your character.
There are 4 classes for each side, and 4 races each class can choose. Each race has male and female, 4 body types, 6 heads, an extremely limited slider for eye colour and skin colour, and the option to chose between a few different tattoos and accessories. All of which are incredibly ugly. I wanted to be a twilek bounty hunter, but that combination is not available so right off the bat I had to make a choice between playing a class I didn't want, or a race I didn't want. After 10 min of exploring all the different choices I settled on the least ugly of my options, a cyborg bounty hunter. Who turns out has nothing to do with any of the people shown in the opening cutscene. Instead you start out as a low level nobody, working for some other low level nobody, doing something that happens every year.
The star wars scroll informs us that the main story line centers on an event known as the great hunt, which is the space bounty hunter equivalent to the super bowl. Every year all the bounty hunters get together and hunt stuff. Not exactly the most exciting plotline, but whatever, lets get to the blasting people, right? Not quite. Pan camera to landing spaceship. Exit my bumbling teen character, who makes his way through a bustling starport to the bounty hunters office, I guess.
After 15 min of meaningless dialog with wooden characters and exploring the starting area I get my first mission. I have to rescue a someones brother from a gang. So I head out and on my way I run into someone who has another quest for me. So I stop, and converse with the fellow, and convince him to allow me to assist him in his great task. The task of course, is to kill 0/6 mobs.
So I head out into the street and down an ally towards where my quest indicator is leading me. I see a group of thugs standing idle in front of the door I am supposed to go into. So this is it, I draw my blaster and like Han Solo, I shoot first! 45 min into the game I kill my first mob. Gunned down in cold blood, from beyond its agro radius. It respawns almost immediately, so I kill it 5 more times. Quest complete! I level up. Then I run through the door convince the gang members inside to free person I was sent to rescue. I head back, killing a few more people on the way. I turn in the quest, I level up.
I am totally bored at this point, and decide that bounty hunter may have not been the best choice. So I reroll, and try another character. Sith inquisitor, twilek. Maybe this will be more interesting? It is not. It is the exact same quests, but in a different setting. Instead of a city and gang members, its a sith temple and slugs.
Typical conversation...
Questgiver: So are you the new guy?
Option1 : Yes, I am here to help!(+1 lightside)
Option2 : I guess I am.
Option3 : Yes, and if you cross me I'll kill you.(+1 darkside)
Questgiver: Well I just hope you good enough for my quest.
Option1 : Yes, I am up to the task!(+1 lightside)
Option2 : I guess I am.
Option3 : Yes, I am. And if you cross me I'll kill you.(+1 darkside)
All the ingame cutscenes suffer from horrible pop-in, and have a global chat overlay. If you are going to break immersion why even have the cutscene to begin with? The h
Your point is invalid, as the US would have collapsed a long time before Bush if they stayed with pure capitalism. The only thing you can deduce from this fact is that hybrid systems that merge aspects of both communism and capitalism are far superior to pure implementations of either. Bush was not the first one who abandoned free market principles. You have lived your entire life under a tightly regulated market controlled by a hybrid government. You have never lived in a free market. You have grown up in a mixed economy in which both the state and private sector direct the economy. This is not pure capitalism.
Or are you going to argue that the programs imposed on the free market introduced in the "New Deal" such as the Social Security Act, Fair Labor Standards and the creation of labor unions were built on capitalist ideals?
Tron used around 12 minutes of rendered CGI in the entire movie, mostly for static background shots. Almost all of the special effects were made using backlit animation.
The first movie to use 100% CGI instead traditional animation styles was The Last Starfighter.
I think the question would be better phrased "How does Jon Stewart get away with this without committing CIA assisted suicide?"
The answer of course, are his Mossad connections.
What part of "it's the exact same thing that happens on the Communist side of the argument" don't you understand?
China "abandoned communist principles to save communism". A high ranking Chinese official was once quoted as saying "We will try everything. What works, we will call Communism". The current modern implementations of both communism and capitalism are functionally identical.
Stop clutching to the archaic belief system that your parents indoctrinated you into from birth. It has dragged you down so far the point is completely over your head.
Because smartphones and ipads are a much better gaming platform, right? If Lord British is correct instead of crap console ports, you will get crap cellphone and ipad ports.
They changed that. Animal Planet does not make shows about animals anymore. They make shows about people who like and or work with animals. I have not watched much since they made that change. I am however a fan of Investigation Discovery, aka the Murder Channel.