ConsumerHans

Members
  • Content count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ConsumerHans

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Interests
    Art
    Audio
    DevOps
    Programming
  1. Meta Game

    The pros to this would be that you could make all kinds of statements about existing games. For instance, there could be a level that looks exactly like a tube. There could be places where the AI is just standing around, waiting to be triggered by the virtual player. You could sabotage them or get past them without triggering the event. The cons are that conventionally, creating many unique levels would require more effort with textures, items, etc. So maybe there would need to be a reduction in details as compared to, let's say, Battlefront 2. Players would have to be okay with this reduction for the sake of a new gaming approach.
  2. Meta Game

    Sounds cool. The level would then dissolve or become uninhabitable for the enemy AI. I believe any traditional mission template could be played out from a meta perspective. For instance, a Search&Rescue scenario. You enter a level where a virtual player is fighting the enemy AI. Just like you or I would when we play Deus Ex or CoD. You then have to find this player w/o getting killed and convince him that you're not part of the AI. Then you need to extract him to the 'gap'. A rule of this world might be that you cannot enter a level with just any type of weapon, but you would have to follow the rules and available items of the rendering engine. After extraction he becomes a member of you squad/team/party, just like in Mass Effect, let's say. Once you have pissed off the enemy AI long enough, they become aware of your presence and start to hunt you down in the meta space between the levels. And so on :=)
  3. Meta Game

    Sounds like something that a lot of games are missing. I wish those were arguments brought up when certain CEOs decide whether to produce the next AAA title. Yes my idea is a twist on an existing genre, with a new layer of possibilities or just a fresh approach to an otherwise dull tunnel level event trigger grind.
  4. Dynamic world framework

    Thanks, I will take a look at this game.
  5. Meta Game

    Sometimes, when a game is badly broken and the collision detection is not working right, you might fall through the floor or a wall and then for a short time, you'll see the game level as some sort of strange labyrinth or cube in empty space, before the game usually restarts somewhere in the level. Wouldn't it be interesting to turn this into a feature? Let's say you fall through the floor somewhere and think "the game is broken" but instead, you are being picked up by a ship with some Morpheus type of figure on board. From then on, you control the ship, drifting through the empty space that is inhabited by some evil maintenance creatures, and you can see all the different levels of the game as they hang there in the void. You insert yourself into these levels consciously to fight the enemy AI, and so on. I would love to see that.
  6. Dynamic world framework

    @CortexDragon That's like a layer of dynamic events in an otherwise static open world. Kind of interesting, but I'm not sure if it creates the immersion I want to have. For instance, does the bandit's attack have any consequence in the world? Would the city where the merchants go to suffer some kind of shortage in food or weapons or something, making them more vulnerable to attacks from enemy factions? In his latest game review, AngryJoe talks about how he's tired of triggering scripted events and that he had hoped CoD would implement some kind of campaign mode with players joining divisions, creating dynamic strategic situations on huge maps etc. Very fitting. @Kylotan >To do the same for in-world events, you'd need to devise a mental framework for what form that should take, and only then could you consider a code-based one. I wouldn't have the slightest idea on how to do that.
  7. Dynamic world framework

    I think games like Witcher 1-3 have tried their best to come up with something that feels alive and moving, other than let's say the RPGs by Bethesda, which are loved by many and described as kind of empty and generic by at least as many. But as far as I know, they don't have a dynamic campaign, it's all just a bunch of scripted events. 1) Not sure if this can be generalized. XCOM has pure RNG and is still very popular. Also, it's only pure RNG if you decide not to do anything, which is not the point of a dynamic campaign. 2) That's a good point. I haven't had too many multiplayer experiences besides Battlefield, so I can't really say how static or dynamic their worlds/campaigns are. I tried Warframe recently and was pretty disappointed in that regard.
  8. Dynamic world framework

    Not sure what you mean by that. But I think I'm looking for something new here that couldn't be established by combining existing work.
  9. Dynamic world framework

    Thinking about it, the term "Dynamic World" might be aiming at something too complex. So let me call it "Dynamic Campaign Framework". I think my initial example was a bad one and therefore I was maybe misunderstood in what I am looking for. Let me try it again, I'll keep it as short as possible. In a traditional RPG, the player get's thrown into a world under some pretense (story), the goal usually being of eliminating the ultimate Orc overlord or something similar. The simplicity of this logic is obfuscated by a more or less complex story. You then collect weapons/armor, level up, and ultimately become strong enough to face the different challenges all by yourself. When you have ultimately triggered all the necessary events, the game is won - hurrah. This is basically where game development is today and has been for 20 years. In a dynamic campaign, Orcs and Humans will just do what they do - battle each other. They won't just stand around, waiting to be triggered. Whether the player engages in the campaign himself, doesn't really matter. One could just stand on a hill and watch the war going on. The outcome at this point would be pure RNG. So the player's goal would be to support his faction in winning the war. This could be done in several, semi-realistic ways: He could sabotage the enemie's supply lines He could join the next assault, hoping to slay an Orc or two He could help with the manufacturing of (advanced) weapons for this faction He could try to find and pay a traitor for information etc. So the challenge for a dynamic framework would be to simulate two faction at war. There are certain parameters I could think of: Supply. An army needs a constant flow of goods, which is also one of it's weak points. Assault and defense. When a certain amount of supply or troop strength is reached, the faction will carry out an assault. If it is successful, that part of the map is taken. If it fails, the faction will retreat, waiting to re-supply. There could be parameters like loyalty or morale to influence the combat strength of a faction. The immersion in such a scenario would come from the fact that a player cannot win the war all by himself as usual, which is silly and played out anyway. Instead, all of his actions would have a real effect on the dynamic campaign. There was only one game I could think of that did this, Falcon 4. Because it was so difficult to learn and rather sterile in it's looks, it might not have appealed to many gamers. But those who played it know that the level of immersion was hardly ever reached by another game. User InSight nails it pretty well in his comment on GOG: "After all these years, no other sim has come close to the immersion of being a fighter pilot in an ever-changing dynamic campaign, where you see this coordination of different flights and ground forces trying to achieve victory." What it established should have served as a template for all other types of games - be it a military simulator like ARMA, an FPS or an RPG. Unfortunately, that hasn't happended. Instead, we play the same stuff as always, but with better graphics. The complexity of such a dynamic campaign led me to believe that it might be better to create a framework, so no single company would have to do the job all over again each time they want to create a dynamic campaign game. Orcs could be replaced by T-80's or Reapers and could be rendered by the CryEngine or Unreal, it doesn't really matter. That's all.
  10. Dynamic world framework

    Well it needs to be kind of abstract I suppose, because it is an abstract layer that comes in *before* anything is being rendered. Isn't that what a framework does? At least in my own experience. I'm a web dev, but because we all mostly use just a few different popular frameworks, doesn't mean that all the websites or web apps are the same. So the liberty would be to create and control rules and interactions in the virtual world with the help of this framework, which would be something extremely time consuming if done by every game for itself. I mean, that's the same basic thought behind selling/licensing game engines - to create different games.
  11. Dynamic world framework

    I know the title sounds awful - I'm after some real world feeback about an idea I have had in my head for about a decade. I have to say I'm not a game dev, I'm a consumer. There are game engines - Frostbite, Unreal, to name some that I have heard of myself. They add the physics, AI, rendering, collision and some other aspects of the game. What they don't seem do is to simulate the world that the game actually plays in. Therefore more often than not, this world seems to be simulated by scripted events (missions, waypoints, etc.) or in a more "Open World" kind of approach that let's you do whatever you like, but often without any real consequences. I was thinking about a framework that simulates, on an abstract level, an artificial dynamic world, and that could be connected to a game engine by choice via API/interface. I'll try an example: There's a table with a suitcase full of guns. It is rendered by the game engine. I can kick the table and the suitcase will fall down. But if I pick up the suitcase and go out on the street and happen to run into a police control, I'll either get arrested or, in case of resistance, shot at. So on an abstract level, there's an item A that triggers a response from a group B based on my action C. I know that this can be done by scripting, but that's not what I'm interested in. I'm looking at a dynamic framework layer that a game dev could connect to a game/physics engine in order to create a game. Is this understandable? If so, is this in any way doable or marketable, from a professional's point of view? Thanks, Michael