Last message on previous page:
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

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

Dnia Sun, 01 May 2005 16:03:44 +0200,
Kornel Kisielewicz napisal(a):

> 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.

Well, there are several games that have good graphics.

Somebody mentioned Lemmings.

Prince of Persia have nice graphics too.

There was a tennis game on Atari ST, forgot the name, where the character
were just 3d `stick people', but this was very good graphics (especially
because the way it was animated).

Worms series (not counting the 3D ones) have acceptable graphics.

The Day of the Tentacle has pretty good graphics.

Secret of Mana 2 (Seiken Densetsu 3) has awesome graphics.

That's only a few examples of games with good graphics -- in my opinion
offcourse. And, offcourse, the games still _have_ it's graphics, so is
using past tense appropriate? Maybe it would be if it was de[pended on
technology. But graphics can be good or bad no matter what technology it
actually uses. All this IMHO, offcourse.

--
Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
`The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.

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

The Sheep wrote:
>>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.
>
>
> Well, there are several games that have good graphics.
>
> Somebody mentioned Lemmings.

Yeah, they were so cute! (except the 3D versions -- it destroyed the
feel IMHO).

> Prince of Persia have nice graphics too.

Yes. And the animations were so beautiful -- another comes into mind --
Another World -- the cinematics don't look bad for todays standards! Add
line anti-aliasing, and you would have something that would look like
right out of a Flash game :-).

> The Day of the Tentacle has pretty good graphics.

Yeah ;-). I liked the style. But personally I enjoyed Full Throttle
better :-).

> That's only a few examples of games with good graphics -- in my opinion
> offcourse.

I agree.
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"Invalid thought detected. Close all mental processes and
restart body."

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

In article <d52oi0$e95$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>Another World -- the cinematics don't look bad for todays standards! Add
>line anti-aliasing, and you would have something that would look like
>right out of a Flash game :-).

Someone REALLY needs to do this!

Alan

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

Elethiomel wrote:
> 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.

Nice article. Of course were the gaming industry to
reach photorealism it would then move on to target
the next level of realism. The whole article was just
a beat up - and wasn't the stuff about Starship Troopers
just out and out wrong? AFAIK It's based on a book
(RH circa 1950s), the computer game came after.

--
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

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

Kornel Kisielewicz wrote::
> 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.

Isn't the point of playing games to waste time in a fun way?

The only reward you get from playing is fun. If it's not fun, you either
play the wrong game, or you better should look for another hobby.

I play Diablo II/LOD a lot lately. It's not precisely an MMORPG, but
it's multiplayer and online. I recall a lot of funny occasions, some
tragic moments, alot of nice and helpful coplayers and unfortunately
some people who only seem to live in order to insult others and bring
them down.

You know, I was into programming before, but looking back I think the
time I spend on my programs was even a bigger waste of time - waste
because in large parts it wasn't fun, but just work.

Currently I think online games are a good way to turn time into a fun
experience. (Of course offline games are so, too )

> Nothing changes in MMORPGs -- it's just the experience points
> and level of your character.

I'm not sure. I could swear that I didn't play two identical sessions
yet, each one was different. Not only that D2 includes a lot of
randomized elements, you often play with different groups of players and
even if the games world is mostly static, no two sessions are the same.

> Oh, you mean there are other people there?

Yes, otherwise it wouldn't be a multiplayer game

To a large extend the players determine if a game session will be fun or
not. And I must sy I met quite some players who also want to play in a
sensible fun way, so it's quite possible to have good gaming sessions.

> Well, I far more like to chat face-to-face...

Then just do that, but don't tell the people that like online games that
they are doing something wrong

OTOH the lack of communication is a big drawback in D2, yet in such a
fast paced game, there is just no way to type messages and control the
game - too many players died while trying.

Voice based systems can help.

Sometimes I'd like more character animations, like waving, and emoticons
to show if you you are happy or not.

> 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...)

IMO role-playing is beyond the technical aspects. You can still play
your chosen role regardless of you level. OTOH this means role is
something else than "I'm the demi-god warrior who can kill everything in
one hit". Try to make your role orthogonal to the power of the
character, at lest less dependand, then it's not so much of a problem
anymore.

But I agree, what's currently sold as MMORPGs are IMO bad platforms for
roleplaying.

--
c.u. Hajo

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

"ABCGi" <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4275d057$0$79456$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> Elethiomel wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Nice article. Of course were the gaming industry to
> reach photorealism it would then move on to target
> the next level of realism. The whole article was just
> a beat up - and wasn't the stuff about Starship Troopers
> just out and out wrong? AFAIK It's based on a book
> (RH circa 1950s), the computer game came after.
>

Call me naive, but Starship Troopers always seemed very much like
StarCraft. Of course they may both be based on the same thing, I don't
know...

--
Glen
Lyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+

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

Raymond Martineau wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, at worst the combat can feel like an annoying series of blockades
in the way of the plot - this is a feeling I most often seem to get with
the Japanese console CRPG genre of games, where the game part is pretty
much just optimising firepower and hitting the right attack button
repeatedly.

>>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.

What I meant is that you could at least put most of that stuff behind
the scenes and turn the numbers into more vague descriptions, or just
indirect influences. Most computer games have no trouble with this at
all, but do it to a CRPG and the pocket calculator munchkins start to
complain.

>>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).

I think it's one of the bigger annoyances with party-driven adventures.
With each party member there's new equipment limitations and optimums
and the time you spend out of the adventure and in the backpack
increases continuously.

> 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.

I haven't played Arcanum, but that sounds like a bit of a two-edged
sword - it could either bring variety or just divide the optimisation
into three routes (tech, magic, balanced). You could say that in D&D
there's also a division into physical and magical traits, only the
choice making process is different.

>>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.

I don't mean that you should be able to tell your life story to each and
every random bypasser (unless perhaps the game's premise includes a
simple solution for that, á la Torment or Fallouts). The traditional
three-state good/neutral/evil dialogue, where the outcomes are
predictable several miles away, is just getting a wee bit old.

--
"For a mechanic you seem to do an excessive amount of thinking."
-- C-3P0

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

Hansjoerg Malthaner wrote:
> Kornel Kisielewicz wrote::
>
>> 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.
>
> Isn't the point of playing games to waste time in a fun way?

I don't know how to put that in words. But one waste of time isn't equal
another. One leaves good memories, the other just eats your time. One
provokes creativeness, the other one makes you feel completely lazy
afterwards. I don't know -- maybe it's just me -- but I feel completely
differently after playing for example Frontier, Tie Fighter, ADOM,
DeusEx, Might and Magic, then I feel after playing Diablo II, an online
mmorpg, or KOTOR...

> The only reward you get from playing is fun. If it's not fun, you either
> play the wrong game, or you better should look for another hobby.

It is fun and addicting while I play it -- but I feel completely lazy,
and not entertained afterwards. There's nothing deep that keeps me
remembering the experience.

> You know, I was into programming before, but looking back I think the
> time I spend on my programs was even a bigger waste of time - waste
> because in large parts it wasn't fun, but just work.

Oh, come on Hajo!

> I'm not sure. I could swear that I didn't play two identical sessions
> yet, each one was different. Not only that D2 includes a lot of
> randomized elements, you often play with different groups of players and
> even if the games world is mostly static, no two sessions are the same.

I played MUD's for four years. I couldn't find anything new in Diablo
II. On the other hand, I played something called AmberMUSH for a short
while... it then was closed... but... I still have very fond memories of
it.... I still wish I could be part of that again...

OTOH tough, all my RLDev work would probably be closed then ;-).

AmberMUSH was addicting, brilliant and made me feel like a part
something great... And it required from me using other parts of the
brain then the brain-hand connection.

>> Oh, you mean there are other people there?
>
> Yes, otherwise it wouldn't be a multiplayer game

It was ironical ;-). Most of the chatting on MMORPG is "Wanna group?",
"Help u?", "1000 exp!", etc... Makes me wanna kill them for using the
term RPG...

>> Well, I far more like to chat face-to-face...
>
> Then just do that, but don't tell the people that like online games that
> they are doing something wrong

I just wanted to state that for me there's no point -- There's no
difference for me between chatting in a MMORPG then a Chatroom.

> Sometimes I'd like more character animations, like waving, and emoticons
> to show if you you are happy or not.

StarWars Galaxies. But such systems are useless anyway.

> IMO role-playing is beyond the technical aspects. You can still play
> your chosen role regardless of you level. OTOH this means role is
> something else than "I'm the demi-god warrior who can kill everything in
> one hit". Try to make your role orthogonal to the power of the
> character, at lest less dependand, then it's not so much of a problem
> anymore.
>
> But I agree, what's currently sold as MMORPGs are IMO bad platforms for
> roleplaying.

This is my dream actually -- GenRogue MMORPG, where Roleplaying would be
enforced. And joining would be by application (like AmberMUSH).

AmberMUSH was solely about roleplaying - there were stats, but actually
nobody cared about them...
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"It's much easier to make an army of dumb good people than to
make one single smart good guy..." -- DarkGod

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

On 2005-05-02, Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl> wrote:
> afterwards. I don't know -- maybe it's just me -- but I feel completely
> differently after playing for example Frontier, Tie Fighter, ADOM,
> DeusEx, Might and Magic, then I feel after playing Diablo II, an online
> mmorpg, or KOTOR...

I think you're on to something here. For example, just about everyone
who picks up World of Warcraft seems to become addicted to it. I haven't
played it myself, but I've gotten the feeling that WoW is a game that
gets people addicted, and not a good game in the sense that you don't
feel you've wasted time after playing.

I've got two ideas about what the qualities of the better games might
be. One is that the game makes you actually accomplish something. Diablo
and most MMORPGs are just grind games where you don't really need to
think up a good strategy, you just hit things till they die and get
resurrected if you die yourself. In Diablo, you can end up with a
suboptimal character, but you can always kill Diablo just by grinding
away long enough. Needing to make irreversible choices that can mean
success or failure in the game makes things more interesting than a
flashy clickfest.

The other idea is that a good game's world doesn't feel like it exists
only for the player's entertainment. If the world and plot are
interesting enough, I won't feel that at least the first play-through
was a waste of time (I think this is the case with KOTOR). Of course
for a more lasting appeal, the interesting and challenging gameplay is
still needed, as once the world and plot are known, there's no longer a
reason to play the game just for their sake.

--
Risto Saarelma

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

strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer)
wrote in news:8eadncA41ctuo-_fRVn-qw@adelphia.com:

> There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is
> dead:
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp


He is ba ka.

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

Dnia Mon, 2 May 2005 21:39:35 +0000 (UTC),
Raghar napisal(a):

> strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer)
> wrote in news:8eadncA41ctuo-_fRVn-qw@adelphia.com:

>> There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is
>> dead:
>>
>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
> He is ba ka.

That's rude.
He's very intelligent man, he just happens to be mistaken (and even that's
still to be seen).

--
Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
`The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.

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

Raghar wrote:
> strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer)
> wrote in news:8eadncA41ctuo-_fRVn-qw@adelphia.com:
>
>>There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is
>>dead:
>>
>>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
>
> He is ba ka.

He is what? I'm sorry, your message got mangled in transmission. What
arrived at my news server is as quoted above: monosyllabic babble that
bears no resemblance whatsoever to written English.

--
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."

Ar