Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

ActiveUnique

Member Since 22 May 2013
Offline Last Active Oct 12 2014 09:44 PM

Topics I've Started

Pay To Cheat AKA Amazing Unicorns

05 April 2014 - 04:27 AM

[edit]
Players want to be creative. What we need are more virtual sandbox games where they can express themselves.
 
What I'm thinking of is a game where you'd ride animals around and reshape the landscape by shooting colors. Each color of pixel represents a material of sorts. So when you drop a blue bomb onto a yellow beach it'll splash water everywhere and you could draw a nice place to vacation.
 
The idea of reshaping worlds has been played with in 3d games like Spore. I've seen games that play with pixels, and/or voxels (they're pretty much the same thing to me). There's a lot of demand for for fully destructible environments, puzzle solving, and even causing trouble.
 
So a game where you ride around on unicorns reshaping the world fits the bill.
[/edit]
 
Before the OP edited this, the post was:

Online games with other players. Occasionally players want a quick rush, score big, and laugh at other players who spend a long time improving their skill.

I'm sure we all recognize the pay to win system and the benefits for selling those games. Some pay to win systems are based on escalation so that it gradually grows as the community grows. It opposes what I really believe, which is that games should be fun, without extras.

I ripped parts of this from the unwritten guide for scumbag devs. Now I'll pass it on to everyone else.

If you haven't heard, games are just giving away their gold now. Just pay them and they'll give you more gold than any gold farmer will make.

I just looked up some random evidence supporting the concept players don't actually want to play the games they love. The number wouldn't lie.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/08/17/finishing.videogames.snow/

So why not pay to cheat?

There are games that let you pay for instant gratification. It costs $10 to twink your character in Spiral Knights. You'll achieve game-breaking power levels that otherwise would have taken 2 months of grind, you could even finish the game. I calculated the ultimate weapon in the game was worth $100 which would give any player a near immaculate pvp score. Even then you don't have access to the end-game content, which is a pay to play basis, but not a subscription.

Let's take it to the final level and admit it. Pay, and we'll let players break the game. We'll even supply custom coding for a low rate (let's call it at $200 for invisibility or a posh hat), a server that is anti-hacker that still allows custom gear, a vanilla server, and a free to play server.

If you or a player catches someone hacking in an anti-hacking server, have them pay a penalty to avoid banishment to hell. Praise the whistle blowers, burn the witches.

Have fun milking them for every penny.


[Theoretical] Games that evolve from player input

09 December 2013 - 07:47 AM

This felt very one-sided so I decided to go do my own thing. In case a Google search dropped you on this page, the bulk of the content and currently all updates now populate my gamedev blog here.

---My Blog---

http://www.gamedev.net/blog/1780-theoretical-games-that-evolve-from-player-input/

 

You're in the right place if you want to see the first public post on the topic.

 

First impression.

If you're playing a game, and feel like you could have wrote a better dialogue, why not? Because it's hard coded and there is currently no system to accept new additions other than what the developer intentionally implemented.

 

Asynchronous multiplayer, crowd sourcing

Skip to "Cause and effect" to see the first generation of this idea.

In its very nature the game will require constant input and have no end because of constant review and revision.

How I concluded this would be fun.
First of all, the text based genre doesn't seem to connect well recently. But Wikipedia ranks 6th in the world's global popularity for visited web sites*.

Users are either going there to edit or find out something new. If they didn't need to, or they thought it wasn't fun, they wouldn't, they'd go read a dictionary.

General Logic

Crowd sourcing solves problems. Games require players to solve problems. Video games can be solved by crowd sourcing.

Crowd sourcing makes problems ... so games can be made by crowd sourcing.

We can observe in meme or genetic evolution. Only the strongest survive.

So who's up for a debate?
More to the point, any concept this logic results in will follow:


Cause and effect "pairs"

 

Similar to regular games, this first generation is text based. It is also comparable word of mouth story telling.

 

This concept is intended to result in a database of cause and effect that expands so large there is no one place in the database you can access without encountering a new puzzle, riddle, or joke. A single browse may result in deeply complicated games one person cannot properly solve without "cheating", but an open ended solution input system (text for now) can both accept and reveal all past user's input.

It utilizes one of the weakest and most primitive forms of puzzle gaming to its own advantage, direct user text input. It throws away the worst part of intelligent gaming (not to be mistaken for mindless), the grind. Any solution is allowed to be entered, it then reveals past accepted solutions if the player wants to see them, and any other outcomes to that new solution can later be polled.

Possible use case:

A highschool student enters a "new problem" into a database. They press send and two hours later (when some undetermined process is completed) the system has concluded this is not a new problem, it found 281 past instances of similar problems with over 12,000 uniquely input solutions that have been reduced to 3 similar accepted ones. The problem was used in 23 stories and there are 112 other user identified entries that applied the problem directly, remotely, or metaphorically. 2 word games were submitted that utilize this problem. 1 game is registered to utilize this problem. 18 external user submitted links are identified to contain this problem.

 

When the student returns home 6 hours later they find out how common their new idea really was. It's too interesting to ignore because they thought of it all on their own.

 

specific logic (refer to general logic above)
Different problem solutions can have different outcomes. It is possible for 100 players to think of 100 unique solutions with its own new outcome, the most common solution and its outcome pairing is usually the most applicable (due to probability). It is possible for 100 players to think of 100 different pairs, the most common pair is the most applicable.

Reverse gaming

 

from our point of view this is science fiction

the concept
I came up with the second generation pretty much the same way I came up with the first one. If any previous generation is incomplete there's no way for this to function.

Now I'm writing science fiction. We do not have the technology.

When something happens while telling a story, people may become intrigued and make revisions. There is an understood flexibility in the rules of the story, and we'll make our own adaptations. After the first generation is matured there is a already a system that understands these things, but it needs to be taken a step further.

This is not the same as virtual reality, but it may be related. When a user interacts with a game, it is possible to record metrics. Metrics include physical locations players reached, and what options are picked, and possibly any other in-game stats that may be broken down into statistics. It is really hard to think of a good use for all of these metrics when the game is already done.

Similar to drawing an animation. The game creators will provide the key frames, they define the game and link specific events to cause and effect, the end users will simply enjoy the game and then possibly log their "what if" back into the cause and effect. This makes it a better game.

Still drawing from the crowd sourcing concept, specialized user made content can be created that defines the in-between frames (visuals and programming).

Combine the metrics and content creation. When a player simply acts out a new solution, rather than suggesting it, the new metric is recorded. Now here's the beauty of this. The game developer's assistants, a special user, a programmer, an artist, one of the end users, whatever they may be referred to later can learn someone tried something completely new, and ludicrous, and wrong, and then they will create content to make it right.

Currently science fiction at best, a fully integrated system could "tween" the animator's and previous content. Specialized users, or the "animator's assistant" will be more suited. For the same reason virtual reality is just not done, this isn't happening any time soon. But if you refer to generation one in this series, maybe you'll understand how it works a little better now.

In its final stages, it would be very possible to play a game "backwards" like a video tape, because the cause and effect are modular. This solves the problem of why we can't have true time travel in video games. This also solves the complexity of developing open world games. This doesn't quite solve our lack of content required for virtual reality. Well, chances are the third generation will involve all those things.

specific logic
The cause effect database of the past generation in gaming has matured, I can go play just about any text game online and feel like I'm interacting with an incredibly creative game master who knows every rule. I can even suggest things and sometimes the GM can tell me it won't work, and the reason why. Now the specialized users who make content for video games have been using these ideas more and more. We need a better program to quickly bridge the two.

references:
* http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org for URL metrics

 

about the author:

This is how I wake up in the morning.

 

recent edit:

Wrote second generation game concept.

Added science fiction, content tween, and game reversal tags to reflect the changes. Note: multiplayer tag still seems out of place, it's coming in the next generation.


'uhhhuh' I'm listening

02 November 2013 - 01:18 AM

ribbit

The setting is a lush green meadow surrounded by a forest with a single pond at its heart. The pond has branches and lily pads, and various vegetation with some other life that feeds from it.

In the pond a very small frog, his is named Spud, he sleeps in a cage of dry grass. The dry grass is its bed and comfort, and we know he'll be there a long time. A lizard is always nearby to put him back in the cage.

Each morning when the frog is hungry the lizard, let's call her Liz, brings him a fly and then she leaves. Inside the cage the frog can relax and eat what is provided by nature for a very long time, although this is far too simple.

After midday the lizard returns and sits directly in sight of Spud on a floating branch. Spud looks at Liz with one eye, this is something to be accustom to. When the lizard looks up, seeing one shiny eye makes her happy, and she opens up the cage of dry grass with a deft claw poke.

The frog hops out and explores the mysterious pond like it is entirely unknown each day.

Sometimes he knocks over a lily pad while surfacing and Liz appears out of nowhere just to barely touch his nose. Occasionally he gets his tongue stuck to a reed, and Liz gives him a gentle nudge away from it so he is unstuck. Everything that is done in this pond comes as a complete mystery, but there is some unknown reason behind it all.

More confusing than ever to Spud, is whenever he hops on a floating branch in the water like Liz, Spud is immediately picked up and carried back to his cage. The cage is closed and without explanation, for how could there be one? This is so disorienting he doesn't struggle and sometimes loses the rest of the day.

Spud waits for Liz to come back so he may look at her again, for it is his one true joy to be in the company of the lizard who takes care of him, and he will care for her.


Help reveal MMO mythology, facts, stereotypes, and marketing ploys in the industry of g...

25 May 2013 - 07:47 AM

tldr; Tell us what you think "MMO" means a game is in your own words. Help define MMO in ways a dictionary will not. What experiences have you had that set an MMO apart from other games?

Before reading, see the list of rules at the end of this post.

I've seen this going around, on dev forums there's a sticky thread that warns ~ mmos are expensive, you need millions to even get a crack at it, nobody will take an mmo idea seriously. Based on my tight definition of mmo, I agree 100%; and I won't reveal my logic, because I want to hear an opinion or a story from anyone else.

This may require a state of mind, rather than an explanation, to understand where I'm coming from. Today I was watching Penny Arcade: Extra Credit, (even they support the previous point about mmo = $$$), they stated in one episode I'll drop a link to at the bottom: "Gamification is going to be big and it's probably going to be awesome. Just be wary, because someone out there is going to try and use it against you. Just keep your eyes open." As a little side-game I'll rate any replies that follow my own logic hot or cold depending on how close they come.

I decided, this is a good starting point. I even did the tiniest research and in quick concession I threw each conclusion away in disgust and satisfaction that the MMO meaningfulness is for all intents and purposes over the open web a lazy way to say multiplayer.

A country of the biggest online gaming population in the world, China, does not appear to have an official definition for MMO. On one of their versions of Wikipedia-type websites baike.baidu pointed that distinction out, stating what it means in English instead, (I read this with Google translation). I think that's more of a finger-pointing tactic because we sort-of defined something, and never completely nailed down what it meant; they aren't touching it, we could really clean up this mess.

ref:
Websites accessed May 25th, 2013
"... someone out there is going to try and use it against you..."
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/gamification

"Define MMO," this is a confused and candid article I found pretty quickly in a single Google search. Please don't fill up on opinions here, come back and leave your own.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/01/22/the-daily-grind-how-do-you-define-mmo/

 

MMO RPG , is in English Massive (or Massively) Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game abbreviations. There has not been MMORPG official Chinese translation, while in China the more common translation is "massively multiplayer online role-playing game" is a network game.

http://baike.baidu.com/view/96213.htm





Rules that will help keep the conversation civilized.
Three Simple Rules:

1. Share insights and opinions, and explain as little or as much as you like.

2. If you want to debate with a person, use the pm system and be patient, it takes 1 or 2 weeks to notice there's mail sometimes.

3. Direct replies must be questions only, or the thread will self-destruct. e.g."Why did you think so. about so.?" she asked, slowly reaching for a baseball-sized coconut. See #2 for any other reply.


PARTNERS