Feargus speaks the bad talk again

[axelgreese]

huh?

[4too]

The wind riffs and ripples across this Pool Of Radiance.
The defraction of the surface offers many reflections on this thread.
And if light could be spun into substance,.., I offer'd up a coat of many colors.

One spin discussed the cusps of technological introduction, and the time and energy it takes to create a good movie, or a good game.

The first "talkies" were stage plays on film. 3D and computer gaming are in a similar juvenile transition. (If it doesn't "change", then it's damned to eternal adolescence.) Lara Croft "talking" may not grab the world by it's tender parts, but Garbo made the platform leap from "silent" to "talking" movies. Games and movies are kin medias, the end product depends on a collaboration of many disciplines, and luck.

Or are bad games,

The embodyment of consequences...
The 4 Horsemen of the Apoco'lypse(FOT game killing bug), or
the 4 Market'eers (the usual suspects for premature ejaculating publication)?

Was Fallout a work of craft, or were we all just lucky?

Was FU's leak, or speak, a floater to prep the planet that any possible FO3
ain't gonna look the same? Was he turf marking? Or a loose "cannon" pissing into the wind, ready to take a risk?

Is there a consensus that it must "play" the same? An invigorating, intoxicating, energizing, interactive drama of sweat, blood, and muties? AND NO FAIRIES! Or is the "joystick waggle" to be rendered in vivid 3D earth colors, 32k shades of biege, and radioactive rust.....oooohh more particulate wizardry...!

4too

[axelgreese]

[Lunchmeat]

man you have one for every occasion, don't you?

"Say 'what' again, motherfucker. i dare you, i double dog dare you!"

[Mad Max RW]

Although the peanut has a long history, having been found in Peruvian mummy tombs, peanut butter is a relatively young food. In 1890, an enterprising physician, Dr. John Kellogg (of corn flakes fame), created peanut butter as a healthy protein substitute that was easy to digest for patients with no teeth. The manufacturing process was mechanized by George A. Bayle, Jr., and a patent for a peanut-butter machine was issued to Abrose W. Straub in 1903. In 1904, peanut butter came into the limelight at the St. Louis Universal Exposition by concessionaire C. H. Sumner, where it was promoted as a health food.

When innovative agricultural scientist Dr. George Washington Carver developed an improved version of the butter, it attracted even more enthusiasts. In 1922, peanut butter was commercially-born when J. L. Rosefield of Rosefield Packing Company of Alameda, California perfected a process to keep the oil from separating in the peanut butter along with spoilage prevention methods. He marketed this commercial peanut butter under the name Skippy as "churned" peanut butter, a smoother, creamier version of the coarse-textured original.

Today, more than half the American peanut crop goes into the making of peanut butter, but surprisingly, the majority of peanut butter consumed in the United States is imported. Federal law mandates that any product labeled as peanut butter must contain at least 90 percent peanuts, with the remaining 10 percent restricted to salt, sweeteners and stabilizers. In 1992, statistics showed Americans alone consumed 857 million pounds of peanut butter or 3.36 pounds per person.

Peanut butter is available in smooth, chunky (with small bits of chopped peanuts), natural, reduced-fat, no sugar added, and even swirled with jelly for those time-challenged consumers. Commercial varieties are usually a blend of ground, shelled, roasted peanuts mixed with vegetable oil (usually hydrogenated) and a bit of salt. Some varieties also contain sugar and additives as stabilizers to prevent oil separation and to also enhance flavor. Natural peanut butter normally contains only peanuts and oil, and will often separate requiring stirring.

[Doyle]

Good idea, max, it's time for a sandwich.

[SuperH]

Personally, I prefer creamier peanutbutter, chunky is just too much work. A nice glass of milk though is absolutely necessary afterwards though, because saliva doesnt do a good enough job washing it down.

[DarkUnderlord]

4too speaks better English than 90% of people on the internet. He's more fun to understand than that lot too.

[Briosafreak]

I`m with DarkUnderlord on this. Just take your time reading 4Too`s post , paynetothemax, and you will find many similarities with things you said earlier, only with a distinctive style that adds some flavour to an increasingly k33l or monotone internet.

[Jeff]

I think that was his point?

[Red]

For one, every second I spend adjusting that camera is one less second I'm spending playing the game. In other words, this is a feature that actually gets in the way of people playing it. It's pointless interface micromanagement, so I fail to see how allowing a camera is a "good thing" in terms of a "gameplay feature".

That's right, however you fail to notice that even in 2D games you're actually still stuck doing this but it's ususally just moving the POV around the area you can view. A few 2D games offer a zoom-out to get a better idea of the bigger picture. Unless you're watching a movie you'll always need to move your POV around no matter how the game is made. The challenge is not to to entirely remove a feature but rather to make sure the interface to handle it isn't too cumbersome for the user.

Secondly, often games that have camera pretty much force their usage. Not too many 3D games actually allow you to see behind an object that's obscuring your view, because you have a camera. That means that rather than that camera just being an option, it's forced down your throat because you have to use it to see what's going on most of the time. They almost never have that lovely ALT key feature for spotting items, nor do they have transparent walls that get between the player and the what that player needs to see, like his or her character.

But you know that all these features are possible, so I hardly see this as an argument. Right now I can only think of one game that uses a isometric view with "invisible" walls and it would be the 3D version of syndicate (Can't recall it's real name though...) Console games often feature vanishing walls (à la Oni) but for the most part this is irrelevant to the discussion since they use crappy 3rd person perspectives.

There's another thing which can ease the game's 3D handling which is simply designing the areas behind other areas with nothing critical in them - but this should be used in no way as a "replacement" for other lacking fatures (such as suggested highlight and transparancy).

Thirdly, it ties up input options which could be used for other thing. Useful, gameplay things, because those keys or that part of the mouse will be dedicated to serving that purpose. Depending on how many axes of freedom the camera has, you're going to end up tying up a lot of buttons or a good chunk of the mouse. Instead of a zoom, that mouse wheel could be used for a quick inventory selection, for example.

Another moot point as most games allow to to reconfigure the interface. Although this usally takes an experienced user, the functionality of the game isn't stalled by extra controls.

You want some solid objections to cameras? There they are.

Solid? You very well know it's possible do to everything in 3D which was in 2D witht the main difference being that the quality of the final 3D render will be lesser then it's pre-rendered 2D counterpart.

Your analogy simply doesn't work because you're talking about vastly different things. An audio track is in no way, shape, or form, similar to polygons with a Z-Buffer.

3D vs 2D == New technology
Sound vs Silent == New technology

People jump on the new technology, not entirely sure of what they're doing. They release stuff, and at first it's seen as innovative and people crave it. As the technology is embraced, people grow used to it and start having a standard for the content exposed. This happens about at the same time the new media itself is acknoledged, so you have a flood of crappy titles using the new technology and a few perls which use it properly and do something interesting with it.

It's the same thing we're seeing with video games that happened to plentu of other stuff such as the silent->talkie, and b&w->colour. There's plenty of other examples out there.

In 2D, you see and hear an explosion, the same as in 3D. An explosion in a silent film, you're just seeing it.

In 2D you see the explosion layered over whatever sprite it makes explode. In 3D you see it engulf the area around it. The nuance is probably much less critical then the silent vs talkie comparison, but I think that was the whole point of the ananolgy, to bring something more powerful into the picture.

If you wanted to make a good analogy, you should have done plays/theatre versus movies. Of course, your analogy would backfire horribly since modern movies suffer from the same problem 3D games have now. They're most flash and very little substance. Gladiator winning an Academy Award is enough of an example of that.

What's the backfire? This is a perfectly good example. And this is exactly what's always hapenned and will always happen. It doesn't mean that plays are better then all movies though.

PS: All you people who thought this was a good analogy need to try reading for comprehension, because it's definitely NOT a good analogy.

Uhu.

It's also rather funny you should mention the camera thing since that's another part of the graphics engine that takes up interface development time. HUZZAH!
[...]
So, in the end, you'll get a lot of flashy graphics and wonder where the hell those features in the feature lists are or wonder why they're shallow compared to how they're trumped up.

Just wanted to point out I agree with all that as people often assume that I'm against something I'm not when I reply specifially to parts of another post and don't adress the rest of the post.

[Mad Max RW]

Although the peanut has a long history, having been found in Peruvian mummy tombs

Suuuure, asshole. Whatever the hell you say.

, peanut butter is a relatively young food.

I strongly disagree. Don't ask me to back it up with facts because I have no idea what I'm talking about.

In 1890, an enterprising physician,

Oh great, let's see where this bullshit is going.

Dr. John Kellogg (of corn flakes fame), created peanut butter as a healthy protein substitute that was easy to digest for patients with no teeth.

Bullshit.

he manufacturing process was mechanized by George A. Bayle, Jr., and a patent for a peanut-butter machine was issued to Abrose W. Straub in 1903.

I felt like pulling this sentence out for no other reason then to look smart.

In 1904, peanut butter came into the limelight at the St. Louis Universal Exposition by concessionaire C. H. Sumner, where it was promoted as a health food.

Let's see how much longer I can do this until people think I'm 1337.

When innovative agricultural scientist Dr. George Washington Carver developed an improved version of the butter, it attracted even more enthusiasts.

God damn. I am so kickass at making arguments. I don't even need a point. All I have to do is chop someone's post into little pieces and say whatever the hell I want.

In 1922, peanut butter was commercially-born when J. L. Rosefield of Rosefield Packing Company of Alameda, California perfected a process to keep the oil from separating in the peanut butter along with spoilage prevention methods. He marketed this commercial peanut butter under the name Skippy as "churned" peanut butter, a smoother, creamier version of the coarse-textured original.

Fuck Skippy and the horse it road in on.

Today, more than half the American peanut crop goes into the making of peanut butter, but surprisingly, the majority of peanut butter consumed in the United States is imported. Federal law mandates that any product labeled as peanut butter must contain at least 90 percent peanuts, with the remaining 10 percent restricted to salt, sweeteners and stabilizers. In 1992, statistics showed Americans alone consumed 857 million pounds of peanut butter or 3.36 pounds per person.

Starting to get kinda tired quoting each sentence.

Peanut butter is available in smooth, chunky (with small bits of chopped peanuts), natural, reduced-fat, no sugar added, and even swirled with jelly for those time-challenged consumers.

Yeah, well I think you're an idiot. blah blah blah wah wah wah

Commercial varieties are usually a blend of ground, shelled, roasted peanuts mixed with vegetable oil (usually hydrogenated) and a bit of salt.

Must be getting close to a full page of nonsense.

Some varieties also contain sugar and additives as stabilizers to prevent oil separation and to also enhance flavor. Natural peanut butter normally contains only peanuts and oil, and will often separate requiring stirring.

Lesson: If you can't get your point across in 3 sentences or less you're nothing more than a bag of hot air.

[axelgreese]

4too speaks better English than 90% of people on the internet. He's more fun to understand than that lot too.

Yeah I was just kinda like "what's going here... mommy where am I?!?!"

[4too]

The fundumental essence is having fun.

Any sense of play keeps one on the court.

Have a tennis ball, fine. Have a bowling ball, even better.

Play what's in your hands.


Now, what does FU have in mind by acknowledging his most dear critics,
when discussing a potential FO 3? Was it an open hand, or a backhand?

4too

[EvoG]

Thirdly, it ties up input options which could be used for other thing. Useful, gameplay things, because those keys or that part of the mouse will be dedicated to serving that purpose. Depending on how many axes of freedom the camera has, you're going to end up tying up a lot of buttons or a good chunk of the mouse. Instead of a zoom, that mouse wheel could be used for a quick inventory selection, for example.

Well hardly a "good chunk"...all our camera movements are on one button on the mouse. Come on Saint...at least use strong arguments. :D but I still sorta love you....sorta



4TOO : I love reading your posts...

MAD MAX : You get a free copy of the game....screenshot...that I'll be releasing shortly...for creativity...best disection of the typical thread on this forum...well any forum...HUH LAR IOUS

[Mad Max RW]

The fundumental essence is having fun.

Any sense of play keeps one on the court.

Have a tennis ball, fine. Have a bowling ball, even better.

Play what's in your hands.

4too

Oh, I got one.
Confucius says: He who goes to bed with itchy ass wakes up with stinky fingers.

Remember that.

[Red]

It can all be summed up to pruritus ani.

[Rosh]

Well hardly a "good chunk"...all our camera movements are on one button on the mouse. Come on Saint...at least use strong arguments. :D but I still sorta love you....sorta

Well, how many buttons does YOUR mouse have? If it's anything like those found normally, I'd wager that you'll be using 1/3 of the buttons or more, which is definitely a substantial amount.

[axelgreese]

Well hardly a "good chunk"...all our camera movements are on one button on the mouse. Come on Saint...at least use strong arguments. :D but I still sorta love you....sorta

Well, how many buttons does YOUR mouse have? If it's anything like those found normally, I'd wager that you'll be using 1/3 of the buttons or more, which is definitely a substantial amount.

That's in addition to the x and y axis of the mouse's scroll.

[Doyle]

Well, how many buttons does YOUR mouse have? If it's anything like those found normally, I'd wager that you'll be using 1/3 of the buttons or more, which is definitely a substantial amount.

And God only knows that having that button assigned to an action is important in the fast-paced world of RPGs.

Oh, yeah, I'm trying to cut back on that. *pinches self*