Amiga.org
Operating System Specific Discussions => Amiga OS => Amiga OS -- Development => Topic started by: Nick on June 01, 2003, 06:35:57 PM
-
Hello. This is the first new thread I created in months.
I`ve been designing this strategy game for years now. I`m trying to come up with the design for the ultimate strategy game. Not a simple game, though easy to use at first. I like games where it takes ages to learn everything, but easy to learn the basics. It`ll be 3D, as 2D won`t allow for everything I want to be included.
One day I`d like to start making this, but for now I`m still coming up with ideas and fitting the jigsaw together. It`ll be a hightech strategy game, Dune like (completely different, but just to clarify its not turnbased and not like a realtime UFO etc).
Has anybody got that thing that you really like in a strategy game, or something that you`ve always wanted?
Anyway back to designing it.
Thanks
-
I too have spent many a long night designing my own strategy game... it just seems that I get boged down in ideas, and I hoave megabytes of code that doesn't really work the way it should and I give up... until the newxt time...
I'd like to see it written in C using SDL :-)
-
Hehe I`m a graphic artist with limited programming knowledge. That wouldn`t be my department. I`m determined to do something with this. SOme of the ideas I`ve got would kick anything I`ve ever seen, by far.
-
Line Of Sight is very important in a game like this. Have you got any calculations for it yet?
And...
It`ll be a hightech strategy game, Dune like (completely different, but just to clarify its not turnbased and not like a realtime UFO etc).
No, that didn't clarify it at all. :crazy: ;-)
Strategy games I've seen (I've played them since the 80s) are either realtime or turn based. Dune was more or less turn-based (although in a different way). Dune2 was realtime. If you don't mean either, what do you mean?
-
Nick wrote:
Hehe I`m a graphic artist with limited programming knowledge. That wouldn`t be my department. I`m determined to do something with this. SOme of the ideas I`ve got would kick anything I`ve ever seen, by far.
You'd be surprised how many times I've visited your site and wondered about giving you a call and getting some gfx done... but really I don't have the time.
:-(
-Edit- Which reminds me I've still got the beginings of an Avro Vulcan simulator on my A1200... I never finish stuf :-(
-
Line of sight is alreadyd part of my plane, though I haven`t done anything about it. I haven`t got to any indepth stuff.
Well I`m "fully booked", graphics wise at the moment. After I`ve done my current stuff I`d like to start my owm project, though If I do I don`t know.
Speaking of graphics for strategy games. Anybody interested in helping me create the units for Realms Of Power? (not related to my strategy design).
-
Like I said:
Axe wielding redbearded Vikings doing stuff to innocent maidens.
I'll be under my rock in you need me :-).
-
Heh.. creating a REAL asskicking strategy game (turn based) was my biggest dream ever since I've discovered that one can do more on computers than simply staring at the next game.
About three years ago I started writing my own documentation to the game.
Its currently over 100 pages of ideas, rules, algorithms, sketches.. hell, I even have got multiplayer engine created (on which some released MMORPG runs).
And.. it should be rewritten from scratch. Because the games technology didn't stood still...
IMHO, If you REALLY really wish to create such project, split it to steps. At first, start with simple projects. This will tell you what is the best approach to the problems you'll encounter.
I went the other way and ended up with a gigantic project nor me nor my company can handle.
-
StarCraft
It's the ultimate strategy game. Everything about the game is just perfect. No hype, no lack of feeling, the fun doesn't end with the campign.
It's only got one flaw; it havn't got 24-bit gfx.
-
Nick wrote:
Hehe I`m a graphic artist with limited programming knowledge. That wouldn`t be my department. I`m determined to do something with this. SOme of the ideas I`ve got would kick anything I`ve ever seen, by far.
oh dear!
i dont mean to sound insulting, but do you have a lot of experience creating games?
or would sombody else do the programming?
3D is a bit more difficult than 2D - esspecially on the amiga
-
>It's only got one flaw; it havn't got 24-bit gfx.
HAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!
playability is far more important than gfx and sound.
if it had been 24 bit, it would go slow on most pc setups, thus become much more boring, thus not get so well liked, thus maybe not even reach you.
Think about that for a moment.
earlier on this thread the 'line of sight'
was mentioned, and I am currently in a team
that develops -In My Opinion- the best strategy game of all time. It has PERFECT line of sight,
if we mean the same thing.
Alltho' I feel that playability is everything in a game, I mainly help with gfx to it, (but that is only because I have no coding skills outside BASIC), And I have realized that it makes the game more beatiful, but has overall no effect on playability. That is; IF this game CAN get more playability. That I don't know.
I won't say its name,
because there is a (very) old version of it on aminet that I now think is somewhat crappy compared to its present state. :)
-
KennyR wrote:
Line Of Sight is very important in a game like this. Have you got any calculations for it yet?
Implementation of visibility depends very much on the design of the 3D engine. For BSP models there are ray/leaf intersection techniques that are optimised for line of sight.
But BSP is not well suited for terrain.
I have a 3D engine (development suspended atm) for a syndicate style game that has a simplification for line of sight, but it depends on the fact that the world is composed of 3D prefabs - i.e. just like building a 2D map from a set of prefabricated tiles.
Each prefab is a cubic block that contains a list of polygons (that cannot overlap the block).
The blocks have a visibility fraction (0.0 to 1.0) assigned to each face that is precalculated.
This precalculation is performed by estimating how obscured the view through the block is looking through it axially from each face and various diagonals. Nasty gaussian elimination to get it down to six face factor values, but hey, what is precalculation for?
So a totally empty block has a visibility fraction of 1.0 for each face. If there was a solid wall on one face it would have a fraction of 0.0. Varying degrees of obstruction from polygons inside the block result in interim fractions for each face.
At runtime, a sight probability is calculated by simulating ray of light passing through the block. The ray is attenuated by multiplying by the visibility fraction for each face of the block it intersects (easy to calculate).
We trace a line through all the blocks it crosses(algorithm similar to Breshenams line draw) to arrive at our final probability which is then compared to a random value in the range 0.0 - 1.0.
There are several optimisations that skip lots of multiplications. For example the world is composed of repeating prefab blocks. Once we trace the beam through one block, the overall attenuation is cached and recalled each time we cross a matching one. The trace can also early out if the overall attenuation falls below a certian threshold.
This is imprecise but simplifies line of sight calculations immensely and adds a nice touch of unpredictability that was rather fun ;-)
-
The two features I'd like to see in an Amiga game:
1. A campaign editor like in Starcraft, with optional "simple mode" to quickly create a "just kill your enemy" map.
2. Easily replacable graphics for user customization. That could be difficult with 3d graphics though... maybe a texure editor option?
Gameplay suggestions:
Maybe have certain units lose functionality as they become damaged.
An army morale counter would add an interesting element as well.
Allowing ground troops to take over vehicles from enemy crews.
Varying damage based on how much cover units have
-
well i always like startrek armada the game is now over 3 years old. A clone could be easyly made from freely available 3d modes on web you could easy include other scific shows ships again most 3 d models are on the web. to get around legal trouble just change the ships abilty and make people get the 3 d models for graphics. who knows activision might release code.
-
Hi!
Speaking of graphics for strategy games. Anybody interested in helping me create the units for Realms Of Power? (not related to my strategy design).
For informations about Realms of Power have a look at Realms of Power - Homepage (http://www.RealmsofPower.de.vu).
-
a new remake of mega-lo-mania in 3d would be an awesome strategy beast ! :-o
-
Warzone 2100 was an excellent RTS. Same engine as Earth 2150 and Ground Control.
Earth 2150 sucked as an RTS, too simple gameplay, simple tech tree, etc, and Ground Control sucked too, as you just attacked bases, never having one of your own.
I wish they had an "RTS construction kit" based on this engine.
-
I guess most of us that grew up with strategy games, once or twice has designed a game of our own. I have done that several times, mostly table top battle simulations but also strategic campaign games. The results have been mixed. Those I have liked best and played most have been simple ones with an innovative idea. Those I have scraped are mostly huge projects with less focus on a achievable goal. For example, the largest and most complex game I ever made, a space strategy game with everything from tactical battles to political simulation has never been played while my very simple travel table top game where all troops and terrain are symbolized by lego pieces stuck on a 1x1 foot lego plate is very popular among my friends.
Most of the problems with complexity can be solved by automation when making a computer game, but programming in it self is harder the bigger the system is. So even if a game with very high comlexity level is nice to play on a computer, it isn't that an easy task to make it. The focus must be on the main idéa of the game and the software design have to be modularized so that it will be easy to add on complexity later on.
My own view on what makes a great strategy game is fairly clear to me on some points and very shaded knowledge on others. One of my main objections to many popular non turn based games, such as age of empires and similar, is that they are not a competition of minds but a competition of handling the user interface. As soon as you have learned the basic strategys all are pretty equal on that mather and the one whom is the fastest to use the keyboard and mouse is the winner. Ofcoure skill of handling the outer circumstanses have always been important in real life strategy as well, but it has never been the way of giving orders that has made a general victorius, though the lack of such skills has certainly made a lot of genuises end up as loosers. In the end a great strategy game must give the ones with new ideas and a tactical mind the advantage over the lesser skilled tactitian even though the first one has the quicker hands on the keys. There are ways of handling both turnbased systems and real time ones that does create a continues flow without taking the step from strategy to action to far. For example the real time system of Europa Universalis and the turnbased and time limited system of Alpha Centauri. Another thing I liked is a real-time space game which i forgot the name of that let one player make the strategical decissions while the rest played the tactical simulations in real time action battles. To make the thinking of the game play important that was a nice way since the player in strategical command sometimes had lots of time to make long term plans and sometimes had to give split second orders. Whatever system one chooses it has to be very well thought through.
Lots of computer games have implemented shade of war or other systems to make opponents moves and activities invisible for players. Simple once with unexplored parts of the map black or more advanced systems where lots of things make up what you see of the opponents world. What most games doesn't bother with is what you know of your own troops and resources and the time it takes to get the information and for orders to get through. That is sometimes an even more imortant information to hide. One of the games with the best way of handling that i have ever played is the Amiga game of Waterloo. The player was either Wellington or Napoleon. One could see the parts of the battlefield that was in line of sight from the HQ. If one was on a bad spot for reconing one could move, or send out scouts and read their written reports. One had a limited numer of scouts and riders to send out orders. Sometimes they were intercepted by opponents or delayed or shoot or kept by a field commander as he needed him himself. One had to plan troop movements hours ahead ordering simultaniusly conducted assaults to a certain time. If one was to hasty some of the orders didn't arrive in time and the assault was a failure. The commanders sent back reports of tha battles, and the state of their troops if they could and had the riders available. The whole idéa of the game was wonderfull, but the user interface wasn´t good enough to make it one of the best...
Another important thing in the days of internet gaming is that co-operation must pay off. And I do not mean just to combine the troops to form the greater army or fleet or to combine the production of two nations. Those things as well as trade and diplomacy are important parts of strategy, but there is another level of co-operation that is all too often overlooked. Finding peoples skilles and putting them on the right tasks together with people that they work well with has always been crucial in warfare and other forms of competition.
One of the best strategy games I ever played is the card game of bridge. The rules are as simple as the once of chess and the strategies of bidding systems and techniques of play are equally or more analyzed than the first moves of chess. But it is not those things that make bridge wonderfull, it is the unique balance of importance of the structure and knowledge of the bidding system, the skills of playing the cards to make the opponents make misstakes, the possibility to bluff the opponents and the risks involved as your partner is equally fooled and the wonderfull and extreamly important element of communicating and knowing your partner. There are hundreds of systems (strategies) that defines how bridge should be played and knowing a good such one gives you an advantage, but a better player usually beats a worse one even if he doesnt have a good system. But a better player can never be victorius over anyone, regardless of skills and systems, if the opponents are better to communicate and let their resources (cards and bids) work togherer to increase their value. That is such an important part of strategy and forgotten in almost every computer game I have ever played.
If one could design a computer game that has the balance of bridge and takes as much andvantages of the computer as bridge does of the deck of cards one would end up with a compleatly new level of gaming. How it should be done? Well, every idéa, good as bad, is a step toward such a goal...
-
Does anyone remember a game called Balance Of Power from Mindscape I think it was?
I really enjoyed that game I think it was given away on disks with mags in past
You have to take control of a country and prevent nuclear war.
-
Hehe, I've been waiting for one of these.... My ultimate strategy game would be something along the lines of Frontier, but in a much bigger universe.
I'd include plenty of astrological phenomena (ie nebulae, black holes etc) and make the universe dynamic - i.e. constantly evolving. I'd have many more ships, alien races to interact with - and who also interact with each other, and expand the missions to include exploration as well as conflict.
Ideally, there would be an option for network gaming - either as a deathmatch in a single arena or a co-operative team effort.
And I'd have to get a little "creative" with the game's interpretation of physics so that combat is much improved......
Any takers?
:-D :-D
-
relying to 2 posts:
1st one:
--
The two features I'd like to see in an Amiga game:
1. A campaign editor like in Starcraft, with optional "simple mode" to quickly create a "just kill your enemy" map.
2. Easily replacable graphics for user customization.
Gameplay suggestions:
An army morale counter would add an interesting element as well.
--
I too wish games to have these things,
and I have supported the above in my game
'2Decide'
wich is available as freeware on aminet
and www.flyingpaper.com.
2nd one:
--
My own view on what makes a great strategy game is fairly clear to me on some points and very shaded knowledge on others. One of my main objections to many popular non turn based games, such as age of empires and similar, is that they are not a competition of minds but a competition of handling the user interface. As soon as you have learned the basic strategys all are pretty equal on that mather and the one whom is the fastest to use the keyboard and mouse is the winner.
--
HEAR HEAR!!..
I agree so much!!
in most RTS games
its only about moving your units back and forth as fast as possible,
totally lame, irritating, and boring.
maybe we should stop call these strategy games,
and call them 'click faster' games instead?...
most RTS games do not have much 'strategy'
in its real 'think and plan' form.
I believe it has got so popular because there
are many more ppl that want to take action immediately when in real life, instead of thinking first, and RTS games give them this.
And there is no 'think and plan' challenge
in moving your units back and forth,
so 'click faster' games fits well to those who don't want to think.
-
Wow. Some good replies there. I`ve had to open the reply page in a different browser so i can go through all the answers :-)
When I say "Dune" I meant DuneII.
@T_Bone
Warzone 2100 was one of the main inspirations behind this, though not the one that started the original idea off. Its a great game even if I haven`t played it. I`ve watched and helped Cyka_Delik play it enough to know about 80% of what there is to know.
A few of you are getting at the point I`am. Its just too easy for people to get through games without using a massive amount of strategy. I won`t go into all of my idea of how to get around this, as thats the core behind all this. I thought I`d try and put even more ideas in the pile while I thinking about it.
@iamaboringperson
Do you like treading on people`s dreams? or is it your job? :-) No I haven`t made a game before. I`ve been involved (and still are) in making a few games. I`am sure I said I`m not a programmer, so I`m obviously not going to program it. I know 3D is more difficult than 2D. It has another dimension for a start. :-) I don`t know why I bother sometimes.
24bit would be good, but I think 16bit would be good enough. 8bit is too old now. This is supposed to be a modern game. How can you create the ultimate strategy game with bad graphics!?
@Matt
Cool. I already want each untit to have pretty decent damage. It has to be done really. I always like getting damage in games. Losing bits of your plane in B17:Flying Fortress was the best part!
@Micha1701
Your right. How did you know that? :-D
@r_o_o_s
Wow, nice reply. I think thats my point exactly, though we`ll have to see if we`re on exactly the same wavelength later. Oh yeah.....Welcome to this place. :-)
@PMC
I`ve been desiging a game like that for even longer, but that is truly a HUGE peroject. I`ll stick with this one.
@Im>bE
"Click faster" indeed. :-D
Thanks people, though I`ll ignore Odin`s answer
:-D
Keep the ideas coming. I`ve got a list of new ideas already.
Thanks
-
Somebody allready said it, but trade really makes a stragegy game more fun. Most games lacks the feature of trading with other players..
-
>How can you create the ultimate strategy game >with bad graphics!?
a common trap to fall into...
"Finally, all gfx complete, and it looks marvellous!!... ... but... where the heck is the playability?!??? is it behind that overly glamorously drawn castle, or did we bury it under the 782 meg 24bit gfx directory!????..."
no wonder todays games have so low playability when people think graphic matters much.
gfx are ment to present the game to the player,
not to confuse with detailed
and unrelevant art.
Gfx can also be used to bring out comedy to the user, but artistic gfx should be restricted to adventure or movie parts of a game, and not when the game requires varied user interaction,
like in strategy games.
So im not against beatiful art
if that is what you think.
Bridge was mentioned as a game with playability.
Its playability came from all the various mind and personality elements around the game, and thus has nothing to do with how nice the cards look, or how much makeup the opponent wear, or how much artistic art there is carved into the table...
It would certainly add atmosphere to it,
but the bridge gameplay would not be changed by that.
...Hope you all get my message.
I know certain gamedeveloping companies use;
"gameplay first, then graphics."
and that is with good reason.
-
Hehe when I said you can`t have the ultimate strategy game without good graphics I didn`t mean sacrificing gameplay. I`m fully aware that thats important. Almost all of my ideas are in that area, but the best ever can`t be spoilt with substandard graphics. Just imagine the best strategy game. It would have incredible payability AND very good graphics. It would in my mind anyway.
-
Well I totally agree about the RTS aspect being more about "who can click the fastest". That completely ruins the whole point of a strategy game.
My fave strategy games have always had plenty of places to explore, tons of variety and not too complex puzzles to solve.
-
I agree, graphics don't really matter. Hear Hear to Nethack, and all roguelike games (nothing beats ASCII mono gfx).But really tis a great game (if ot, its rpg sorta)
I say one thing that be good in RTS games is a good varied amount of units, and units that are actually different (not like orcs and humans in Warcraft 2, no dif. between them really) I like being able to play as hordes, Or as elite few unit army, cause it adds replayability. just my thoughts..
-
Nick
Do you like treading on people`s dreams? or is it your job? No I haven`t made a game before. I`ve been involved (and still are) in making a few games. I`am sure I said I`m not a programmer, so I`m obviously not going to program it. I know 3D is more difficult than 2D. It has another dimension for a start. I don`t know why I bother sometimes.
24bit would be good, but I think 16bit would be good enough. 8bit is too old now. This is supposed to be a modern game. How can you create the ultimate strategy game with bad graphics!?
NO! i dont wish to discourage you from doing a new game! just what the amiga needs(especially on aos4.0 and mos) are some more quality new games!! if anything i will only encourage people to write new software for it, what ever that software may be!
i have plenty of great ideas for new games! 3 REALLY good ones!! including 1 RTS game with a difference!
im not bad at programming games, if you are good at graphics perhaps we(and some others) should get to gether to work on one
i really want to to a proper professional job
and produce somthing that is really marketable
i would like to put a lot of work into my games and sell them(on CD, shrinkwrapped, somthing that can be sold)
i have plenty of ideas - but little time, so i would certainly be interested in working on such an idea ;-)
:-) :-)
-
@Jeffimix
Isn`t anybody listening to me. I said the ULTIMATE! My definition of Ultimate means the best of everything. Best playability AND graphics. I don`t mean think more about graphics than playability as yes that is the biggest part of it, but graphics are still important to a certain extent. I`m not arguing that graphics are more important. I`ve been saying that a lot of new games seem to have better graphics than anything else. I agree with that fully.
-
Then we mostly agree.
IMO playability matters 90%
>Best playability AND graphics.
If one make beatiful gfx,
then one must also see to that
the player wont be confused and mislead by it,
or unwantedly drawn to it.
for example that a background of a game
seems so real that it looks like it is a part of the foreground.
or forexample if the game character looks like he has more weapons, due to that (s)he is so graphically detailed.
or forexample that the gameworld looks so detailed that virtually all players are mislead to places that has no meaning in the game.
there are many problems that could occur from using good/detailed gfx.
but it would be positive for ppl that like art.
all such problems occuring from detailed gfx
can be solved by using simpler gfx.
The playability will then automatically rise,
unless the playability sucks, and it is more enjoyable to look at all the gfx,
wich I have actually experienced on some games.
but I better (finally) get to the threads topic:
An ultimate strategy game should:
-Be easy to use.
Don't present alot of features to the player at once, but better give them further into the game.
The user will then also enjoy the given features more than if (s)he had got them all at once.
-Have little or no stress factors.
but if required, not for a long time, and big pauses between the stress situations,
as humans will not feel good after longer amounts of stress.
-Start easy, then get harder, possibly also be able to get harder by request from the player.
-Have gfx that is meaningfull to the game
and lets the player know what is going on easily.
if the gametype allows it, then always add humouristic gfx, cause its always pleasant for the player whether its bad or good humour.
-Have sounds that are perfect at telling you if a good or bad thing happened, and wich sounds cool, not lame. And NEVER EVER use sounds that sound annoying.
Like in gfx, humoristic sounds never hurt.
Forexample a high pitched human voice is always funny.
-Have different subgames,
either long term total change in gametype or short small games within the main game.
This because the human brain likes variation
and will tire if the same elements are present over roughly 15 minutes or more time.
-Never make the player wait unneccesary.
unless it is something relaxing,
like a story sequence.
-Have as many options as possible,
but not an option that clearly only has one good choice and everybody always use it.
But if there are too many options,
the user might not want to bother change any of them.
In that case, eliminate the least important options.
-Have many many elements that interfere with eachother. and also add random events.
Don't close the game away from the player, but make it interact as much as possible.
If there is a catapult in the game, then the player will ofcourse want to try it, so make it available to be used.
-support ppl that like to be creative,
in terms of making maps or similar.
-Avoid situations where the player can get stuck or does not know what to do at all.
-Be friendly to the player, not wanting to kill the player in a hostile way.
Also, if possible, have a beginner mode.
Realtime or Turn based, 2D or 3D:
They have little effect on gameplay,
Other than that realtime adds a sense of a an alive world, but increases stress on the player.
Turn based adds time to think, and more control to the player.
2D gives a better overview,
while 3D can be annoying because the monitor is 2D so one cannot move the head to see what is behind an object.
But a final conclution is that different ppl like different games, so an 'ultimate' strategy game will probably never be.
The points above is probably more in my liking than in any others.
-
Good old Battle Isle! Good old History Line!
Maybe Battle Isle 2k3 :-D! Improved!!!
-
I agree with what your saying about adding stuff which isn`t required, but the other stuff has to be perfect, for its function. No loose ends, if you get what I mean?
This has turned from a request for ideas, to a small depate. Cool :-) Best way to get the best ideas.
Thanks Im>bE. I`ll take that onboard.
-
>I agree with what your saying about adding stuff >which isn`t required, but the other stuff has to >be perfect, for its function. No loose ends, if >you get what I mean?
if you are talking to me, then no.
>Thanks Im>bE. I'll take that onboard.
np, I only wish more game developers would.
I forgot to mention that it is nice when a game
has an unseen type of play, and not just another clone of something dating long back.
btw, if anyone needs help on designing a game with playability, then I would be glad to help.
im not some distant being in a distant world,
but a lame boring human like the rest, so feel free to email me whenever.
-
so anybody have any really unique ideas for an RTS?
-
just what the amiga needs(especially on aos4.0 and mos) are some more quality new games!!
And AROS...
And yes, I do have a truely original idea for an RTS, one that plays more like Simcity than Starcraft... but more, I shall not say :-D
-
I do graphic design too... I've been involved in a 2D-topdown shooter like Alien Breed From Team17, And done all the graphics for it so if I can be at any assistance I would like to help you out or any other that needs graphics done (In reasonble amount of work for one person ofcourse :-))
I agree with the idea of more strategy and less keyboard and mouse action :-)
Hmm... A good strategy game to me has cool but not dominating graphics, it has cool ambient and effect sounds, smart enemies = good AI... A multiplayer internet and LAN game would be great and cdda support if people want to listen to their own music :)
-LP
-
bloodline wrote:
just what the amiga needs(especially on aos4.0 and mos) are some more quality new games!!
And AROS...
And yes, I do have a truely original idea for an RTS, one that plays more like Simcity than Starcraft... but more, I shall not say :-D
sounds a bit like one of my ideas ;-)
and i wont say much more either!
-
Hmm... A good strategy game to me has cool but not dominating graphics, it has cool ambient and effect sounds, smart enemies = good AI... A multiplayer internet and LAN game would be great and cdda support if people want to listen to their own music :)
yep, AI is probably most important to me :-)
no game i play ever has good enough AI IMAO
-
no game i play ever has good enough AI IMAO
true ;-)
-
AI is very important in my eyes too. A good example is GT3. Damn good graphics (though not as good as GT:Concept), very good physics (very important in a driving sim), but the AI sucks. I can beat a much more capable car than mine. They make up for lack of AI with a bit of tuning instead. Annoying when you stick to a none tuned race car and they go and cheat, by having more straight line speed. There is more to the AI than just good driving. It would be much better if there was some AI in the setup of the car too. Very complicated, but worth it.
AI should be a major part of games now, but it is lagging behind physics. I like games with the most realistic physics, but AI seems to be strapped onto the game at the last second in many cases. Hopefully in the case of GT, GT4 will fix that. I HOPE! :-)
One annoying thing in some strategy games (and others) is computer player which has abilities which you know are only there to make up for the lack of AI. I like equal opportunities! Yes I know the computer will in a lot of games have abilities you can`t have, cause thats the game, but in the case of Dune II they can build on top of your units. THATS NOT FAIR! :-)
-
In reply to:
"Bridge was mentioned as a game with playability.Its playability came from all the various mind and personality elements around the game, and thus has nothing to do with how nice the cards look, or how much makeup the opponent wear, or how much artistic art there is carved into the table...
It would certainly add atmosphere to it,
but the bridge gameplay would not be changed by that."
_______
Bridge is really one of the best strategy games I've ever played. But the really astonishing fact with it is that is playable with only a deck of cards.
The main reason I brought it up was just that, what if one could make an as fantastic acheavment with a computer as the inventor of bridge did with the cards. To do that, nice and purpusfull graphics will definetly be one of the main objectives, since one of the best traits of the computer compared to the playing card is just that it can produce nice and variable images.
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
bloodline wrote:
just what the amiga needs(especially on aos4.0 and mos) are some more quality new games!!
And AROS...
And yes, I do have a truely original idea for an RTS, one that plays more like Simcity than Starcraft... but more, I shall not say :-D
sounds a bit like one of my ideas ;-)
and i wont say much more either!
Maybe I should say more... Two heads are better than one.. :-)
-
Some of the old Intellivision games were good strategy games. :) I've thought about copying some of the game concepts over to Amiga. I actually made an Astrosmash clone in 1995 with BlitzBasic, but never sent it to Aminet. I'm waiting for AmigaOS4 and the new graphical systems before I start learning Amiga graphic programming. I think C/C++ is out of date, but I guess that's all there is for OS4 right now. Anyone have an engine for RTS or know of one that's on Aminet?
-
DavidF215 wrote:
Some of the old Intellivision games were good strategy games. :) I've thought about copying some of the game concepts over to Amiga. I actually made an Astrosmash clone in 1995 with BlitzBasic, but never sent it to Aminet. I'm waiting for AmigaOS4 and the new graphical systems before I start learning Amiga graphic programming. I think C/C++ is out of date, but I guess that's all there is for OS4 right now. Anyone have an engine for RTS or know of one that's on Aminet?
WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
i have to agree that most of the Intellivision games(Inteligent Television!) were some of the best designed and most playable ever!
my favorite Intelivision game? TRON DEADLY DISC'S!!
whoohoo
and astrosmash is cool too! i still use my intelivision, and i still find it quite fun to play :-) :-)
-
bloodline wrote:
iamaboringperson wrote:
bloodline wrote:
just what the amiga needs(especially on aos4.0 and mos) are some more quality new games!!
And AROS...
And yes, I do have a truely original idea for an RTS, one that plays more like Simcity than Starcraft... but more, I shall not say :-D
sounds a bit like one of my ideas ;-)
and i wont say much more either!
Maybe I should say more... Two heads are better than one.. :-)
well when i have time, I would like to develop an RTS, but i do have some really unique special ideas
i need to find some graphics(+animation) artists
and sound doods :-) :-)
-
reply to:
--
astonishing fact with it is that is playable with only a deck of cards.
--
as you and I pointed out,
it is a good game because of the mind activity between the players.
I have not played it myself tho'
so the trouble of achieving something like it with a computer, is the absence of another human.
But when another human IS present, then most multiplayer games 'at same computer' are fun, and some very fun.
the 2 player game I have played the most like this, is Crossfire 1. It is very playable, and leads to much 'mind fun' around it when trying to outsmart/trick the other player.
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
DavidF215 wrote:
Some of the old Intellivision games were good strategy games. :) I've thought about copying some of the game concepts over to Amiga. I actually made an Astrosmash clone in 1995 with BlitzBasic, but never sent it to Aminet. I'm waiting for AmigaOS4 and the new graphical systems before I start learning Amiga graphic programming. I think C/C++ is out of date, but I guess that's all there is for OS4 right now. Anyone have an engine for RTS or know of one that's on Aminet?
WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
i have to agree that most of the Intellivision games(Inteligent Television!) were some of the best designed and most playable ever!
my favorite Intelivision game? TRON DEADLY DISC'S!!
whoohoo
and astrosmash is cool too! i still use my intelivision, and i still find it quite fun to play :-) :-)
Tron Deadly Disc's consumed most of my after-school time when it became part of my library. Need that to my clone projects. Think we've seen enough 1st person and RTS games. Time for creative games the way they used to be. Have you seen www.intellivisionlives.com?
-
Have you seen www.intellivisionlives.com?
YEP! but i get all anxious and shakey when i visit an Intellivision site! :-D
-
So.
Does anybody have any original ideas for this game? Surely theres something you`ve always wanted in a game? You`ve always said "why didn`t they do that!?" etc.
Thanks for all the replies. Some good points.
-
Nick wrote:
So.
Does anybody have any original ideas for this game? Surely theres something you`ve always wanted in a game? You`ve always said "why didn`t they do that!?" etc.
Thanks for all the replies. Some good points.
i have lots of original ideas, but since ill be working on such a game, they will be put into mine!
still looking for graphics/animation artists BTW... perhaps ill start a new game company
-
--
i have lots of original ideas, but since ill be working on such a game, they will be put into mine!
--
then he will play your game and clone them.
or you will play his game and clone his ideas.
don't you think it would be better if you teamed togheter and made a game twice as good as either?
Teamwork is very good!
a game loves teamwork, because then it gets much better, because 2 heads get more ideas and can figure out things better than 1 alone.
--
still looking for graphics/animation artists BTW... perhaps ill start a new game company
--
I guess your future speech to your company would have a final conclution of:
"...but since I am in charge, the money goes to me!"
Its the likes of your attitude that make all the greed and ego in this world.
I am only interested in making fun games.
Money only matters when I buy food.
If I got an awesome idea for a game,
I would never hold it back!
FUN 4EVER!
Im not asking you to reveeal your idea,
cause you are only a victim of the modern society
where money and fame is presented as some state of undescribed happiness, when the truth is that neither fame or money gives you happiness in the long run.
(pls start a new thread if you wanna reply to this here paragraph)