Dvorak says computer gaming is dead

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all

I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that their
motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making good
games. Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism. Though
statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go' are inheritently
false, it an interesting opinion.

I started coding a roguelike because to me it was basically an RPG, and
I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that graphics
make a good game.

--
Jim Strathmeyer
142 answers Last reply
More about dvorak computer gaming dead
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
    > There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:
    >
    > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
    > http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
    >
    http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all
    >
    > I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
    > game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
    > problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that
    their
    > motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making
    good
    > games. Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
    > have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism. Though
    > statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go' are
    inheritently
    > false, it an interesting opinion.
    >
    > I started coding a roguelike because to me it was basically an RPG,
    and
    > I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that
    graphics
    > make a good game.

    I see Dvorak's point. Although I think he's saying that the industry is
    going to be dying in a few years, rather than that it is dead now.

    I think he's missing the big development of the last few years, though:
    massively multiplayer online games [with good graphics]. Very
    successful, very addictive, and I think they have a great deal of
    mileage in them. Not that I personally find them interesting, but.

    A.

    P.S. I went into a computer game store yesterday and felt quite lost.
    All the games looked the same, none of them looked interesting, I
    couldn't figure out if I should buy any of them, or if so, which.
    Anyone else feel this way?
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Antoine wrote:
    > P.S. I went into a computer game store yesterday and felt quite lost.
    > All the games looked the same, none of them looked interesting, I
    > couldn't figure out if I should buy any of them, or if so, which.
    > Anyone else feel this way?

    Yup. No roguelikes on the shelves ;-)
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Come on, Kornel. 11 years and no binary? And it's not
    vapourware?" -- Mike Blackney
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Antoine wrote:
    > I think he's missing the big development of the last few years, though:
    > massively multiplayer online games [with good graphics]. Very
    > successful, very addictive, and I think they have a great deal of
    > mileage in them. Not that I personally find them interesting, but.

    No. MMORPGs may be addictive but they *are* stupid. When I play them I
    feel addicted, but afterwards I've got a terrible hangover, for I feel
    I've wasted a lot of time, and there isn't anything interesting I can
    recall. Nothing changes in MMORPGs -- it's just the experience points
    and level of your character. Oh, you mean there are other people there?
    Well, I far more like to chat face-to-face... Especialy that the amount
    of roleplaying in MMORPGS is almost non-existent (and what kind of
    role-playingg is that, when you know this guy has 20 more levels then
    you and could pulverize you in a second... -- and if it's a nonkiling
    game, then it's even more pointless...)
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Come on, Kornel. 11 years and no binary? And it's not
    vapourware?" -- Mike Blackney
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Quoting Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl>:
    >recall. Nothing changes in MMORPGs -- it's just the experience points
    >and level of your character.

    Apart from MMOs like Planetside and Puzzle Pirates that don't have
    levelling.

    The term "RPG" is particularly pernicious here. It was bad enough for
    single-player games that got called RPGs because they had sub-D&D
    mechanics; but then people decided to make MMO versions of those games,
    called them MMORPGs, and deduced from that that they must graft sub-D&D
    mechanics onto them.

    Don't get me wrong; I like D&D fine as a tabletop game, but only when the
    type of play is appropriate for those mechanics, not simply when those
    mechanics are used blindly; and levelling, particularly, is very damaging
    to an MMO where it ensures that the vast majority of the player base can't
    actually play together.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Aponoia, May.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl>:
    >
    >
    > Don't get me wrong; I like D&D fine as a tabletop game, but only when the
    > type of play is appropriate for those mechanics, not simply when those
    > mechanics are used blindly; and levelling, particularly, is very damaging
    > to an MMO where it ensures that the vast majority of the player base can't
    > actually play together.

    I sort-of liked the way Hero games did it (and some
    further restrictions my group put on the rules...).

    Basically, in the hero system, you got normal stats
    for free, built a character on 50-150 points depending
    on the campaign style (50 or 75 for "agent or
    adventurer" types, 100 for semi-gritty superhero
    games, 150 for more powerful superheros).

    And then you played, taking experience *slowly*.
    you got another 1 or 2 character points as experience
    every session, and after a 9-month campaign with
    weekly meetings, your character was more powerful;
    but not in a way that broke the campaign or made
    beginning characters completely useless, as in
    other games exemplified by D&D.

    My particular group had an "active point limit" that
    meant you couldn't abuse the character generation
    rules to put more than N "active points" in a
    particular attack, defense, or movement power. This
    meant that experience, mostly, had to go into skills,
    maneuvers, knowledge areas and enhanced statistics
    and buying off starting disadvantages, etc, that made
    your character cooler and more flexible, rather than
    just packing a bigger punch.

    It worked. There was enough accumulation of power
    to keep the characters fresh and developing and
    give players goals to work toward, but not so much
    that the progression from beginning to experienced
    character was a course of repeated exclusion.

    Bear
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
    > There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:
    >
    > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
    > http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
    > http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all
    >
    > I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
    > game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
    > problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that their
    > motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making good
    > games. Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
    > have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism. Though
    > statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go' are inheritently
    > false, it an interesting opinion.
    >
    > I started coding a roguelike because to me it was basically an RPG, and
    > I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that graphics
    > make a good game.

    I don't have to read it to agree with it ;). That's why I'm developing
    roguelike's after all -- cause they are the essence. Anyway, you might
    be also interested in this:
    http://www.the-underdogs.org/scratch.php

    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "11 years and no binary. And it's not vapourware" -- Igor Savin
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
    > There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:
    >
    > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
    > http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
    >
    http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all
    >
    > I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
    > game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
    > problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that
    their
    > motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making
    good
    > games. Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
    > have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism. Though
    > statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go' are
    inheritently
    > false, it an interesting opinion.

    "Photo-realism" isn't a proper target for game design. Some small
    subset of games will work well with photorealism.

    I'm looking forward to us hitting photo-realism (whatever that means
    anyways!) so people can step back and start making the *look* that they
    want. A good and consistent look beats realism any day. We should
    know this best: Ascii letters are very much a choice of Look over
    Realism.

    I think Nintendo's strategy is most interesting. They seem well aware
    of the futility of chasing the per-pixel global illuminated scene.
    Now, if only they made it possible for micro developers to release on
    their platform, I'd be happy.

    > I started coding a roguelike because to me it was basically an RPG,
    and
    > I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that
    graphics
    > make a good game.

    Graphics do make a good game. Photo-Realisitic graphics don't.

    Roguelike developers are very much in the "Graphics" camp. If we
    weren't, we'd be doing interactive fiction! We largely pick a
    simplistic, iconic, look, but that doesn't stop it from being
    graphical. Don't forget that the font you use has been carefully
    worked over by an artist to make it look good!
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
    > FPS haven't really changed, and that they
    > have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism. Though
    > statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go' are inheritently
    > false, it an interesting opinion.

    Inherently false indeed -- once the graphics reach photorealism, and the
    physics is fairly realistic too, the engine will stabilize and all
    they'll have left to compete on is gameplay and price.

    As it is, we're seeing some differentiation in FPS games. There's at
    least four big subgenres (more than one implemented in some games, but
    most games are only excellent in one of them):
    1. Multiplayer, teamplay-oriented -- enemy territory etc.
    2. Multiplayer, tournament-oriented and free for all -- Quake 3 etc.
    3. Single player, kill stuff and get the next key -- quake, doom, etc.
    4. Single player, more immersive story and more puzzle elements --
    half-life and half-life 2.
    Of course there's more games in each category, and some games (e.g.
    Quake 1) belong to more than one (categories 2 and 3 in that instance).

    There's also time-period differentiation: futuristic (quake, doom);
    urban/present/near-future (half-life and half-life 2, far cry, james
    bond FPS games, others); fantasy medieval (heretic, hexen, etc.); WW II
    (Wolfenstein series)...

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    In article <8eadncA41ctuo-_fRVn-qw@adelphia.com>,
    Jim Strathmeyer <strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net> wrote:
    >There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:
    >
    >http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
    >http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
    >http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all

    You know, that's a really, truly terrible article. It's an opinion
    piece with very little insight or research. Basically, he's saying:

    1) The only difference he sees between todays games and
    yesterday's games, aside from some "stupid tweaks", is that today's
    games have better graphics.

    2) Therefore, as soon as graphics get a bit better, there will be
    nowhere else to go and nobody will want to buy new games anymore.

    He then relates how he talked to someone from Nintendo about it.

    He does not:

    1) Give any details of what he means when he says "stupid tweaks".

    2) Tell us what games he looked at.

    3) Interview any actual hardcore gamers and ask _them_ if and why
    they liked new games better than old ones.

    Indeed, I can't find any evidence of research at all beyond that
    conversation with the guy from Nintendo. Yeah, there are problems in
    the current high-end commercial games industry but I've heard the
    discussion before, better done and by more knowledgeable people.

    Personally, I think he's out to lunch on both counts.

    I sincerely doubt that adequate realism will reach us any time soon.
    Yeah, we may get photorealistic graphics in the next five years, but
    after that it'll be physics and following that, who knows? Body
    language, maybe?

    There's a lot more to photorealism than textures and polygons. If you
    don't believe me, watch the movie _Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within_.
    That one has amazing graphics but they keep screwing up little things
    (e.g. a person not breathing except when talking, little tics, etc.)
    in a way that would jar me out of my suspension of disbelief just
    because something looked wrong. They won't have a perfect game engine
    until they can fix _that_.

    But suppose it turns out that the Doom 4 engine is the be-all and
    end-all of video game engines and that nothing can improve upon it,
    ever. All that means is that the game companies will have to make
    creativity and innovation a priority again. It will certainly shake
    things up, but I think that's a good thing.

    It will also reduce the price of game development, since everyone will
    only need to license an old game engine to get top-notch
    graphics. That means it'll be possible for independant developers to
    compete head to head with the conglomerates which will, once again,
    encourage innovative game design.

    Dvorak seems to assume that the (debatable) lack of innovation in
    modern games is because we as a civilization have reached the apex of
    game design.

    Uh huh.


    --Chris


    --
    Chris Reuter http://www.blit.ca
    "You think we live in pretty desperate times when people want to go
    back to 1975"
    --Lard, _70's Rock Must Die_
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl>:
    >
    >>recall. Nothing changes in MMORPGs -- it's just the experience points
    >>and level of your character.
    >
    > Apart from MMOs like Planetside and Puzzle Pirates that don't have
    > levelling.

    Well, so why didn't I ever hear about them?

    > The term "RPG" is particularly pernicious here. It was bad enough for
    > single-player games that got called RPGs because they had sub-D&D
    > mechanics; but then people decided to make MMO versions of those games,
    > called them MMORPGs, and deduced from that that they must graft sub-D&D
    > mechanics onto them.

    Very, *very* true.

    > Don't get me wrong; I like D&D fine as a tabletop game, but only when the
    > type of play is appropriate for those mechanics, not simply when those
    > mechanics are used blindly; and levelling, particularly, is very damaging
    > to an MMO where it ensures that the vast majority of the player base can't
    > actually play together.

    I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
    mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
    warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I think
    that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much prefere
    more balanced systems as GURPS...

    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    My opinions are my own. Share them at your own risk.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl> wrote:
    > I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
    > mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
    > warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I
    > think that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much
    > prefere more balanced systems as GURPS...

    D&D became popular because of their role playing mechanics. It's a shame
    that everyone copies their combat mechanics.

    In my opinion, coming up with a new reasonable combat system is not that
    difficult. Balancing it, on the other hand...

    --
    Jim Strathmeyer
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    > I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
    > mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
    > warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I think
    > that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much prefere
    > more balanced systems as GURPS...

    GURPS?

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Paul Derbyshire wrote:

    > Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >
    >> think that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much
    >> prefere more balanced systems as GURPS...
    >
    > GURPS?

    <http://www.google.com/search?q=gurps>

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Paul Derbyshire wrote:

    > You didn't give me an answer. You said "Go look it up" instead of
    > "<insert answer here>".

    I pointed you to the answer. Seriously - what's your beef? GURPS is an
    absurdly popular gaming system. Tons of stuff has been written about it
    - what's the point in repeating it?

    > But then I didn't ask *you* did I? I asked the original poster

    Not so. You didn't communicate to one person by way of a private media.
    You asked a public question of this group.

    > have to get in your two pesos worth, don't you, whenever you see an
    > opportunity to attack or annoy me!

    I saw an opportunity to post a helpful answer to your question. If
    helpful answers annoy you, there's not much I can do about that.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Paul Derbyshire wrote:
    >
    >> You didn't give me an answer. You said "Go look it up" instead of
    >> "<insert answer here>".
    >
    > I pointed you to the answer. Seriously - what's your beef? GURPS is an
    > absurdly popular gaming system. Tons of stuff has been written about it
    > - what's the point in repeating it?

    To give a quick synopsis? Google can't do that; it can just point
    someone to a bunch of sites that might be tangential, might be a quick
    synopsos, and might be some highly technical, jump-in-the-deep-end
    stuff. How does one know where to begin? Humans are smart enough to
    construct a quick synopsis of a subject. Computers, including Google,
    are not.

    >> But then I didn't ask *you* did I? I asked the original poster
    >
    > Not so. You didn't communicate to one person by way of a private media.
    > You asked a public question of this group.

    I followed up to the original poster asking them to elaborate on
    something they said. Like asking someone to clarify something in a
    conversation, it's assumed you're talking to that person, not
    generically to the group, although someone else the group can chime in
    -- IF they have anything helpful to contribute, which you clearly do not.

    > I saw an opportunity to post a helpful answer to your question. If
    > helpful answers annoy you, there's not much I can do about that.

    Your problem is your definition of the word "helpful", which is,
    apparently, "an answer that leaves someone knowing no more than they did
    before". :P

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Paul Derbyshire wrote:

    > Your problem is your definition of the word "helpful", which is,
    > apparently, "an answer that leaves someone knowing no more than they did
    > before". :P

    Whatever. I answered your question. If you read it you'll learn more
    about GURPS, if you ignore it you won't. No skin off my nose either way.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    I agree with Jeff Lait, graphics are an important component in a game
    experience. However, I would add emphasis on _component_ because there
    are many other things that make for a great game experience, such as
    responsiveness, control setup, challenge and story. Heck, I'm playing
    Sentinel Worlds right now--the graphics are ancient and the interface
    clumsy, but it's such a fun game because it is so well written and
    immersive.

    Back to the article, I think Dvorak completely misses a huge and
    blindingly obvious issue: That games nowadays are funded and created
    mainly by huge media conglomerates that like formulas and are adverse
    to taking risks. Having worked at Activision as a game tester (as a bid
    to become a game programmer), I saw firsthand the resources required to
    bring modern games to market. They aren't trivial; You need tons of
    support. Testing, marketing, publishing, you name it. The creative
    studios may be independent on the surface, but in the end they have to
    make a sales pitch to get the backing of corps like Activision that
    will do the grunt work for them.

    Does this mean the PC game industry is doomed to failure? Only if they
    have a total stranglehold on the market and disallow underdogs from
    getting a foot in. I don't think that's the case (yet). And this is
    what I think Dvorak misses: The next PC game renaissance will come from
    an underdog that manages to get enough funding to put an innovative and
    fun title in the ring. He's focusing too much on the stagnant players
    that won't budge.

    - Leon Torres
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    [snip]

    Quit misattributing me. It's "Twisted One".

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:04:35 -0500,
    strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer) wrote:

    >There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:
    >
    >http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
    >http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
    >http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all
    >
    >I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
    >game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
    >problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that their
    >motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making good
    >games.

    Actually, I've just seen that occurr in large businesses like EA (among
    others.) They generally drive known quality games into the ground,
    resulting in stagnation.

    The smaller development companies can release fun games, but won't have the
    depth that could be made by larger companies. (snort)

    > Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
    >have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism.

    That may be true, but there are only so many ways to write an FPS. How
    many variations of forward-firing weapons can you create before they look
    obviously similar? In any case, FPS games can still be considred well-done
    when they are properly written: Team Fortress is one example, where maps
    can be made to simulate any objective system used in another game. (e.g.
    capture and hold command points as in Firearms, classic CTF and a few
    variants, VIP protection, etc.)

    The RTS genre, on the other hand, has already stagnated. You can tell if
    you note common interface flaws that get copied from game to game.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:47:30 GMT, Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote:

    >David Damerell wrote:
    [...]
    >
    >And then you played, taking experience *slowly*.
    >you got another 1 or 2 character points as experience
    >every session, and after a 9-month campaign with
    >weekly meetings, your character was more powerful;
    >but not in a way that broke the campaign or made
    >beginning characters completely useless, as in
    >other games exemplified by D&D.

    The D&D game system had useless beginning characters because they gained
    experience slowly - either by collecting treasures or killing monsters.
    (3rd edition does change this slightly, but 1st and 2nd seem to revolve
    around this.)

    This could be worked around by allowing forms of training - a wealthy
    beginning character could easily hire trainers and become 5th or 6th level
    without dangerous combat. This might unbalance the game, but shifts the
    weakness of beginning characters over to "green" characters.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:36:32 -0400, Twisted One <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid>
    wrote:

    >Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >> I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
    >> mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
    >> warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I think
    >> that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much prefere
    >> more balanced systems as GURPS...
    >
    >GURPS?

    Generic Universal Role Playing System. From my knowledge of it, it's
    inteded to create fairly detailed universes in a specific campaign (a base
    ruleset, combined with an expansion), with characters created using a point
    based system. I think there might be attributes involved, but I'm not
    sure.

    I haven't used it personally, only peeked at some expansion books.

    As with most point-based RPG systems, it's easy to tell which combinatiosn
    generally result in an ultra-powerful character, based on the ones that say
    that they should only be used with the GM's consent. Naturally, the GM
    will create a combat munchkin that fights against "regular" characters.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Raymond Martineau wrote:
    > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:36:32 -0400, Twisted One <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >>
    >>>I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
    >>>mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
    >>>warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I think
    >>>that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much prefere
    >>>more balanced systems as GURPS...
    >>
    >>GURPS?
    >
    > Generic Universal Role Playing System. From my knowledge of it, it's
    > inteded to create fairly detailed universes in a specific campaign (a base
    > ruleset, combined with an expansion), with characters created using a point
    > based system. I think there might be attributes involved, but I'm not
    > sure.

    Thanks. How is it more balanced than D&D though?

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Leon Torres wrote:
    > The next PC game renaissance will come from
    > an underdog that manages to get enough funding to put an innovative and
    > fun title in the ring. He's focusing too much on the stagnant players
    > that won't budge.

    Previous ones did, too -- in one case, the underdog was named "id
    Software" ... ;)

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Twisted One <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> wrote in
    news:cbadnRSu0YbWnO7fRVn-pQ@rogers.com:

    > Raymond Martineau wrote:
    >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:36:32 -0400, Twisted One
    >> <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
    >>>>mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st
    >>>>level warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the
    >>>>brest". I think that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I
    >>>>far much prefere more balanced systems as GURPS...
    >>>
    >>>GURPS?
    >>
    >> Generic Universal Role Playing System. From my knowledge of it, it's
    >> inteded to create fairly detailed universes in a specific campaign (a
    >> base ruleset, combined with an expansion), with characters created
    >> using a point based system. I think there might be attributes
    >> involved, but I'm not sure.
    >
    > Thanks. How is it more balanced than D&D though?
    >

    Well, it's almost impossible NOT be more balanced than 2e D&D. On the
    other hand, GURPS isn't terrible balanced on its own merits, although the
    newest version is a sizable improvement.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
    > motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making
    good
    > games.

    The game can be good and sell a lot.

    > Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
    > have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism.

    They never went anywhere. FPS is about shooting anything:)
    Some people will always think that a game is "missing" something,
    some better and sophisticated features. I guess that kind of
    people never really enjoy playing games.

    > Though statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go'
    > are inheritently false, it an interesting opinion.

    It's interesting to see what happens to Xbox 2 and PS3 which both
    are going to be expensive to produce because of the high tech,
    not to forget that making games for them is going to be more
    expensive too.
    One way to get the $ is from online games. I guess they have
    planned it that way, at least M$:)

    > I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that
    > graphics make a good game.

    The people that buy games don't neccessarily share that opinion:)
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    In article <1114784765.993553.60210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    mail@guildgame.com says...
    > Jim Strathmeyer wrote:

    > > There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:

    It's dead for him, because he has grown bored with computer games. He
    projects his own disenchantment onto the world at large.

    - Gerry Quinn
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Krice wrote:
    > Jim Strathmeyer wrote:

    >>I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that
    >>graphics make a good game.
    >
    >
    > The people that buy games don't neccessarily share that opinion:)

    I wonder how much of the current focus on hyperrealistic
    graphics is driven by deals with hardware manufacturers.

    I'm not really a paranoid conspiracy theorist; it's just
    that no matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up with
    the facts. :-)

    Lemmings was a *good* game. And those little guys were
    what, five or six pixels tall? With solid colors, no
    shading, and animation that consisted of about fifteen
    different poses?

    Sim City was a *good* game. It was a good game with
    sixteen-color graphics and very little animation beyond
    cars moving around on roads, sprite fires, and some
    really cheezy and not-very-interactive monster-stomping.

    There are more innovative, good games in our future; they
    just won't be produced by the companies who want to repeat
    the formulas instead of innovating.

    And there are "classic" games already; Last night, I
    played simulated klondike solitaire for an hour, and I
    estimate that some folks will still be playing simulated
    klondike solitaire, with graphics barely better than
    those I used, fifty years from now.

    The question is not whether gaming is dead; gaming will
    go on forever, because people are people and people play
    games. The question is whether the companies now producing
    games can make money the way they've chosen to make money.

    Bear
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    > Raymond Martineau wrote:
    > > I haven't used it personally, only peeked at some expansion books.

    >
    > ... if so, then how can you state the following:
    > >
    > > As with most point-based RPG systems, it's easy to tell which
    combinatiosn
    > > generally result in an ultra-powerful character, based on the ones
    that say
    > > that they should only be used with the GM's consent.
    >
    > ?

    I'd presume he peeked at the expansion books and saw some comments
    saying: "If you are doing this combination, make sure you talk with
    your GM because he might consider it overpowered"

    Having played GURPS systems, I wouldn't say his opinion is wrong. You
    really need maturity and/or a good GM to make point based systems not
    fall prey to hopeless metagaming and munchkinism.

    > > Naturally, the GM
    > > will create a combat munchkin that fights against "regular"
    characters.
    >
    > Of course players will find ways to munchkin, but it's the GM's job
    to
    > keep them in line. And that's every system's rule. No P&P RPG system
    is
    > a self-player. But when the players are mature enough there is such
    > problems. And it doesn't pose such stupid powerlevelling rules as DND
    does.

    When you write the computerized GM that can prevent players munchkining
    in GenRogue, we can revisit this topic. For now, with the stupid
    computer GMs that the likes of me write, we are better off with
    stricter systems which explicitly prevent munchkinism (Or, channel it,
    as in the case of D&D), rather than assuming the computer will have the
    good sense to say: "I think that combination is overpowered..."
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:19:46 +0100, David Damerell wrote:

    > Quoting Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl>:
    >>recall. Nothing changes in MMORPGs -- it's just the experience points
    >>and level of your character.
    >
    > Apart from MMOs like Planetside and Puzzle Pirates that don't have
    > levelling.
    >
    > The term "RPG" is particularly pernicious here. It was bad enough for
    > single-player games that got called RPGs because they had sub-D&D
    > mechanics; but then people decided to make MMO versions of those games,
    > called them MMORPGs, and deduced from that that they must graft sub-D&D
    > mechanics onto them.

    I don't think the problem is in the mechanics themselves, it's that
    visible game mechanics have become synonymous with "role-playing game"
    [sic] for a number of people.

    Diablo and its sequels/expansions/imitations are basically mouse-driven
    action games with an element of resource management. Then there are
    the genre-labelled FPS games in which the only "RPG" elements are a
    half-bred fantasy theme and that you get bigger guns as you go on. From
    what I hear, typical MMORPGs fall in somewhere between those two (to be
    honest, I haven't tried any so I could very well be mistaken).

    Not that you couldn't munchkinise any given CRPG, and people do, but the
    trend seems to be to discourage role playing almost completely. Why does
    there have to be visible, numeric stats for everything in the first place?
    Why do the games so often progress so that the only way to keep up is to
    keep optimising and re-optimising your equipment? Why impersonal, generic
    dialogue? And so on... many similar problems are present even in what are
    usually toted as the greatest achievements of the genre.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Twisted One wrote:
    > There's also time-period differentiation: futuristic (quake, doom);
    > urban/present/near-future (half-life and half-life 2, far cry, james
    > bond FPS games, others); fantasy medieval (heretic, hexen, etc.); WW II
    > (Wolfenstein series)...

    The only two recent FPS I realy enjoyed are Jedi Knight: Academy (but
    this one doesn't count, I just like StarWars) and DeusEx (which was
    great IMHO, but it had some RPG elements too). I wonder wether DeusEx II
    is worth a try...
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Invalid thought detected. Close all mental processes and
    restart body."
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:04:35 -0500,
    strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer) wrote:

    >I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
    >game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
    >problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that their
    >motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making good
    >games.

    Hence "game industry" rather than "game-development hobby". It is
    hardly the industry's fault if the way to improve sales is not to
    create a better game. If the public begins to favor gameplay over the
    latest graphics development, then game publishers will shift their
    focus.

    R. Dan Henry
    danhenry@inreach.com
    Idiot boy, when are you going to post something useful?
    Or better yet, get a job and stop being a welfare bum?
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Twisted One wrote:
    > Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >
    >> I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
    >> mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
    >> warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I
    >> think that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much
    >> prefere more balanced systems as GURPS...
    >
    > GURPS?
    Generic Universal Roleplaying System -- entirely pint-driven, no levels.
    And if reasonable, no powerlevelling. My system of choice for my P&P RPG
    World of Shadows sessions...
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Well, the philosophy of the World of Shadows is based on most of the
    degenerate, immoral and foremost amoral philosophical beliefs of our
    world exagarated to the maximum." --Anubis
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:

    > Generic Universal Roleplaying System -- entirely pint-driven

    LOL! Pint-driven? As in, it's a drinking game? ;-)

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Raymond Martineau wrote:
    > I haven't used it personally, only peeked at some expansion books.

    .... if so, then how can you state the following:
    >
    > As with most point-based RPG systems, it's easy to tell which combinatiosn
    > generally result in an ultra-powerful character, based on the ones that say
    > that they should only be used with the GM's consent.

    ?

    > Naturally, the GM
    > will create a combat munchkin that fights against "regular" characters.

    Of course players will find ways to munchkin, but it's the GM's job to
    keep them in line. And that's every system's rule. No P&P RPG system is
    a self-player. But when the players are mature enough there is such
    problems. And it doesn't pose such stupid powerlevelling rules as DND does.
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Well, the philosophy of the World of Shadows is based on most of the
    degenerate, immoral and foremost amoral philosophical beliefs of our
    world exagarated to the maximum." --Anubis
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:14:31 +0300, Aki Rossi <aki.rossi@iki.fi> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Not that you couldn't munchkinise any given CRPG, and people do, but the
    >trend seems to be to discourage role playing almost completely.

    This is most likely because CRPGs focus on combat/tactical aspects rather
    than roleplay aspects. I've noticed something very similar in the very
    early Gold box games (Forgotten Realms series), where there was very little
    roleplaying going on buy plenty of plotline elements.

    This isn't too much of a problem for Roguelikes, which focus around combat.

    >Why does
    >there have to be visible, numeric stats for everything in the first place?

    Most likely, it is out of tradition. In any case, it's not too much of a
    problem unless you want to throw away stats entirely.

    >Why do the games so often progress so that the only way to keep up is to
    >keep optimising and re-optimising your equipment?

    This is a problem with some roguelikes as well. In any case, the
    optimization of equipment is based around the fact that there are only a
    limited number of party memebers in the group. Either that, or there's an
    Angband style of magical item generation (quantity).

    But in any case, sticking with the ultra-best weaponry can easily have
    disadvanages in a properly designed CRPG. For example, Arcanum chooses the
    reputation route - if you max out your technological abilities, you will
    have trouble buying magical items (as necessairy). There might also be a
    problem with a primary objective in the late-game (having to do a side
    quest or something special), but I'm not sure on that.

    >Why impersonal, generic dialogue?

    I suspect that it may take an excessive amount of writing to create
    anything more. For something on the scale of Arcanum, the best you can get
    is personalized generic messages that are used all over the place.
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >
    >> Generic Universal Roleplaying System -- entirely pint-driven
    >
    >
    > LOL! Pint-driven? As in, it's a drinking game? ;-)

    "Point" of course, but the typo funny, indeed ;-)
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Gott weiss, Ich will kein Engel sein..." -- Rammstein /Engel/
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    > Generic Universal Roleplaying System -- entirely pint-driven, no levels.
    > And if reasonable, no powerlevelling. My system of choice for my P&P RPG
    > World of Shadows sessions...

    Pint-driven? Do you mean skills and stats driven?

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    R. Dan Henry wrote:
    > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:04:35 -0500,
    > strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer) wrote:
    >
    >>I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
    >>game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
    >>problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that their
    >>motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making good
    >>games.
    >
    > Hence "game industry" rather than "game-development hobby". It is
    > hardly the industry's fault if the way to improve sales is not to
    > create a better game. If the public begins to favor gameplay over the
    > latest graphics development, then game publishers will shift their
    > focus.

    And then he attacked me without provocation.
    How childish.

    Will you stop with the random, senseless, and inflammatory insults already?!

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    In article <d515dt$rod$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, kisielewicz@gazeta.pl
    says...
    > Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > > Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    > >
    > >> Generic Universal Roleplaying System -- entirely pint-driven
    > >
    > >
    > > LOL! Pint-driven? As in, it's a drinking game? ;-)
    >
    > "Point" of course, but the typo funny, indeed ;-)

    I like it. You could use it for balancing in PvP - if you go up a
    level or get good loot you have to take a drink...

    - Gerry Quinn
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jeff Lait wrote:
    >>a self-player. But when the players are mature enough there is such
    >>problems. And it doesn't pose such stupid powerlevelling rules as DND does.
    >
    > When you write the computerized GM that can prevent players munchkining
    > in GenRogue, we can revisit this topic.

    Okay, see you in a decade ;-).
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Gott weiss, Ich will kein Engel sein..." -- Rammstein /Engel/
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Dnia Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:28:39 GMT,
    Ray Dillinger napisal(a):

    > Krice wrote:
    >> Jim Strathmeyer wrote:

    >>>I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that
    >>>graphics make a good game.
    >> The people that buy games don't neccessarily share that opinion:)

    > I wonder how much of the current focus on hyperrealistic
    > graphics is driven by deals with hardware manufacturers.

    You can have very good graphics without fotorealism.
    You can have nice graphics without fotorealism.
    You can have very good graphics without them being nice.

    I personally prefer games with good _and_ nice graphics.
    Photorealism is boring. Good graphics can take your breath away
    but will quickly make you tired when it's not nice to look at
    (well, not 'nice' as in 'sweet and colorful', Giger quilifies as 'nice'
    too ;) ). I personally don't like photorealistic graphics at all.

    --
    Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
    `The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
    Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn wrote:
    > In article <d515dt$rod$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, kisielewicz@gazeta.pl
    > says...
    >
    >>Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >>
    >>>Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Generic Universal Roleplaying System -- entirely pint-driven
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>LOL! Pint-driven? As in, it's a drinking game? ;-)
    >>
    >>"Point" of course, but the typo funny, indeed ;-)
    >
    >
    > I like it. You could use it for balancing in PvP - if you go up a
    > level or get good loot you have to take a drink...

    This is like our special student's chess version -- which allows for
    begginers to have fair chances against masters:

    Each chess piece type is represented by a different 40ml glass. The
    black pieces are filled with vodka and a drop of strong
    cranberry-essence juice, the white ones are plain vodka. Each time a
    player takes the piece of the opponent, he must drink it.

    The master rule is also that if you spill any piece (the moved one or
    one on the board -- you loose).

    The funny thing is that master's of student's chess have sometimes
    severe differently tactics then chess masters -- sometimes it's a good
    tactical decision to let the opposing player take a couple of your pawns
    right at the beginning.
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Gott weiss, Ich will kein Engel sein..." -- Rammstein /Engel/
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    > This is like our special student's chess version -- which allows for
    > begginers to have fair chances against masters:
    >
    > Each chess piece type is represented by a different 40ml glass. The
    > black pieces are filled with vodka and a drop of strong
    > cranberry-essence juice, the white ones are plain vodka. Each time a
    > player takes the piece of the opponent, he must drink it.
    >
    > The master rule is also that if you spill any piece (the moved one or
    > one on the board -- you loose).
    >
    > The funny thing is that master's of student's chess have sometimes
    > severe differently tactics then chess masters -- sometimes it's a good
    > tactical decision to let the opposing player take a couple of your pawns
    > right at the beginning.

    Hrm.
    Why not have different size glasses -- 5ml for a pawn, 60 for a queen,
    and in between for the others. :)

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Twisted One wrote:
    > Hrm.
    > Why not have different size glasses -- 5ml for a pawn, 60 for a queen,
    > and in between for the others. :)

    Yeah, but that destroys the strategy -- you can sacrifice pawns for a
    greater effect -- sacrificing anything other would be non-wise. Also, we
    don't have different sized glasses :)

    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Invalid thought detected. Close all mental processes and
    restart body."
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    R. Dan Henry wrote:
    > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:04:35 -0500,
    > strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer) wrote:
    >
    >>I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
    >>game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
    >>problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that their
    >>motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making good
    >>games.
    >
    > Hence "game industry" rather than "game-development hobby". It is
    > hardly the industry's fault if the way to improve sales is not to
    > create a better game. If the public begins to favor gameplay over the
    > latest graphics development, then game publishers will shift their
    > focus.

    Yes and Dvorak softens to just predict a downturn in
    the industry which is not an astounding leap and
    could be said about any industry given enough time.
    It also fails to acknowledge the growth of the video
    game industry versus the film and music industries.

    The article is hyped up to gather more attention,
    which has worked, and quite honestly demonstrates
    Dvorak has no real love of modern computer games
    anyway - this contributes to a lack of insight but
    perhaps allows more objectivity. Something that
    cannot be said about the 3D-Realms forum!

    He also uses that stale bug-bear of "when we reach
    total realism" which has been used since the 1990s!
    Perhaps earlier...

    --
    ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
    Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
    DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
    Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 2005-05-01, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > He also uses that stale bug-bear of "when we reach
    > total realism" which has been used since the 1990s!
    > Perhaps earlier...

    Games probably won't reach total photorealism anytime soon. Instead,
    efforts to make games look even more realistic will face increasingly
    diminishing returns. The effect of doubling the amount of visual assets
    in the game will diminish the closer games get to real photorealism, and
    at some point it will simply be too expensive to improve the visuals.

    A more tricky problem is that graphics that are almost but not quite
    photorealistic can actually be worse than clearly stylized graphics. It
    never bothered me in the original Doom that all the sprites were
    identical, but when I saw a screenshot of Doom 3 with two fat zombies,
    it struck me as quite odd that these two creatures had completely
    identical claw marks on their chests. When the game looks more like the
    real world, you also start expecting it is more like the real world, and
    the severe limits every game has become more annoying.

    --
    Risto Saarelma
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Risto Saarelma wrote:
    > On 2005-05-01, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>He also uses that stale bug-bear of "when we reach
    >>total realism" which has been used since the 1990s!
    >>Perhaps earlier...
    >
    >
    > Games probably won't reach total photorealism anytime soon. Instead,
    > efforts to make games look even more realistic will face increasingly
    > diminishing returns. The effect of doubling the amount of visual assets
    > in the game will diminish the closer games get to real photorealism, and
    > at some point it will simply be too expensive to improve the visuals.
    >
    > A more tricky problem is that graphics that are almost but not quite
    > photorealistic can actually be worse than clearly stylized graphics. It
    > never bothered me in the original Doom that all the sprites were
    > identical, but when I saw a screenshot of Doom 3 with two fat zombies,
    > it struck me as quite odd that these two creatures had completely
    > identical claw marks on their chests. When the game looks more like the
    > real world, you also start expecting it is more like the real world, and
    > the severe limits every game has become more annoying.
    >

    Not to mention the "Uncanny Valley" (
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley ) that appears when
    photorealism is sufficiently approached. Of course, this effect applies
    mostly to real-world entities such as robots, but game and movie
    graphics are also affected by it to some degree.
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Elethiomel (kkkk@lllllll.mmmm) wrote:
    > Risto Saarelma wrote:

    > > A more tricky problem is that graphics that are almost but not quite
    > > photorealistic can actually be worse than clearly stylized graphics. It
    > > never bothered me in the original Doom that all the sprites were
    > > identical, but when I saw a screenshot of Doom 3 with two fat zombies,
    > > it struck me as quite odd that these two creatures had completely
    > > identical claw marks on their chests. When the game looks more like the
    > > real world, you also start expecting it is more like the real world, and
    > > the severe limits every game has become more annoying.
    > >
    >
    > Not to mention the "Uncanny Valley" (
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley ) that appears when
    > photorealism is sufficiently approached. Of course, this effect applies
    > mostly to real-world entities such as robots, but game and movie
    > graphics are also affected by it to some degree.

    I'd say the (unproven) theory applies more to computer graphics than
    real-world robots, considering the almost total lack of real-world
    robots it could apply to.

    --
    JTJ | http://www.kolumbus.fi/j.julkunen/
    "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the
    demand."
    --Josh Billings
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    The Sheep wrote:
    > You can have very good graphics without fotorealism.
    > You can have nice graphics without fotorealism.
    > You can have very good graphics without them being nice.

    IMHO the best graphics in a game are in Frontier: First Encounters. Of
    course most modern game-players would disagree with me. But no game
    shocked me so much graphics-wise as Frontier did.
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Well, the philosophy of the World of Shadows is based on most of the
    degenerate, immoral and foremost amoral philosophical beliefs of our
    world exagarated to the maximum." --Anubis
Ask a new question

Read More

Gaming Computers Games Video Games Product