• Advertisement

NestorPL

Member
  • Content count

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

138 Neutral

About NestorPL

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Hi Guys and Girls, Over a month ago, I have sent a registration request to ESRB office, along with cover letter and a short description of the product. I have included all company details required by the ESRB registration page. However, we have received no response so far, no emails, no calls. As we're closing in to the shipping date, this begins to be a problem. I would be greatful if anyone of you shed light on how this process should look like, and whom should I contact. The only contact point seems to be the regular post mailbox, with no emails nor phones given. Seems like a very old-fashioned way for such a high-tech moderating board. Thank you in advance, Nestor
  2. MMORPG Idea Now hear me out

    How about http://neocron.com a full MMORPG with FPP view, although the combat dynamic are a bit different than in quake, due to latency issues. It's the predecessor of planetside.
  3. Hybrid: RTS, Turn-Based, Tactics gameplay

    Sounds like general Final Fantasy battle type with forces standing on each side and duking it out. It's a good and somewhat fun system though. If you'll make it more advanced, like isometric, or somewhat 3d it will be even more fun. Remember however, that if you have multiple characters to control, and their abilities recharge in .5 seconds, it will be very hard (even for koreans) to maximize the potential of each character. I think a better idea would be 'attack points' being spent for each attack, and recharging N-attack points each turn. This way you can do what you want, and speed-clicking is not an issue anymore.
  4. Real Time Stratergy Commander idea

    Of course that units in "Chaos Gate" were big. The whole point of 40k is the detail on the units, and the feeling to the fight. Now, let's take this idea again, basing totally on 40k Franchise. Chronologically we have : - Final Liberation - Wh40k Epic, BIG Mechs, Thousands of soldiers (in a single unit) - Chaos Gate - Classic 40k Marines/Chaos, Tactical combat, special tricks etc - Rites of War - A bit like Chaos Gate, but based on Panzer General hex-engine - Dawn of War - Current State-of-the-art-40k Remember, that no matter what setting you will choose, ultimately you will control a 'unit'. Be it 1 marine, Squad of Marines, A regiment of imperial guard, you name it. Ranging from 1 to 1000 people. It's still a unit. If you want to get the regiment of 1000 marines and split it into micromanagement by controlling each soldier independently, your players will quit the game after first 200 moves. It just takes time, and makes it more of the same. In a turn based game you have less units, but better and more precise control over them. You can easily plan all of your moves, and you don't need to rely on squad AI to move around or behave in certain situations. On top of that, you, the player, have more time to think about what's happening and adjust to the situation. This is of course less glamourous, as you don't see a raging battlefield, only single shots and explosions, but you have the time to appreciate the setting, the tactic, and the mood of the game. In RTS you can control hordes of people and just toss them into the fray, depending on unit AI to do all the targetting and micromanagemtn for you. In turn, you are awareded with a cinematesque game with battlefield raging with machine gun fire, explosions and flying bodies. That's why Dawn of war is so fun, it's pure chaos ;-) What you need to figur out for yourself, is what you want to focus on. - Will it be tactical combat? - Will it be the setting? - Will it be the pure mayhem? If you want to give a turn based game a more epic setting, then attack the player's forces with hordes of enemies, but in turn give your heroes BFG-like weapons that will allow them to blow up dozens of them with each shot. In the end it boils down to balance between the numbers and firepower, but the players will certainly appreciate the DOW'ish qualities of explosions and flying bodies. Trying to make the game more epic by introducing hundreds of individually controlled units will not help the game, the players will just get tired from all the clicking, and won't focus on the core of the game. Remember that at the same time you wanted to send 'small squads' of your forces to do special tasks on enemy soil. If you really want to make it tactical/covert, then you need to go more with The Lost Vikings/Commandos line, where you have a couple of highly specialized units that help you to achieve your objective, while staying hidden through the majority of the gameplay, as any alert would summon overwhelming forces ending your little trip. What you really need to focus on is what you really want your game to be. Soldiers, ranking, lack of buildings, customizing, won't cut it. You need to assemble these elements into core gameplay, keeping in mind the fact that players are human beings and will want to play this for fun, and you need to keep them interested. For instance, simulation of WW2 trench war where you sit in the ditch for 2 straight days in a row before making a tactical move isnt fun, no matter how realistic or historically correct. My suggestions: - DOW mod to keep the 40k franchise and resemble your original idea - Turn based tactical combat - "Commandos" type gameplay, real time, basing on unique skills of each soldier.
  5. Real Time Stratergy Commander idea

    Quote:Original post by Punk Designer As a player you will be feeling hopefully physically and mentally tired, after trying to manage a whole regiment of men, trying to keep them alive, trying to hold key strategic points and most of all running back and forth all around the map trying to win. This game wouldn't be for the casual gamers but more of the gamer who likes a challenge and likes attention to detail. Cheers for listening. I'll start from the end here. I think you have gotten the definition of non-casual gamer wrong. Myself, I love the challenge, I love the feeling of fighting against odds and overcoming a hard obstacle while doing some brainwork. However, I do play games for FUN, if a game is *aiming* to get me physically and mentally tired, I'm going to toss it into the bin after the first mission. It just doesn't make sense. Only a small fraction of people is actually into S/M. Now, about your game idea. Having recently played through majority of WH40K: Dark Crusade myself, and reading your comments about it being 40k'ish, I cannot loose the feeling that it is basically dawn of war, but with control of each soldier rather than squad, and set ammount of people to begin with. Being in control of each and single soldier is fine and dandy, and there were quite a few successful games based on this theme, namely X-COM: Enemy unknown, or Wh40k: Chaos gate. What separates these games from your idea is that they are *turn based*, yes, the long forgotten genre of slow movement. With such high death penalties, level difficulty, and micro management you are proposing, it is certainly impossible for a non-korean (^^) player to handle all of this by himself, as each unit needs to make concious decision every second, and you cannot even click that fast. The idea of different infiltration, or take-and-hold gameplay modes you are proposing is also leaning towards a turn based game, where tactic of the execution of the mission is important, rather than having a ton of keybinding and clicking around the screen franctically. If you really want to stick with RTS though, it seems very much like Dark Crusade, where in the last missions you need to complete multiple objectives, often including infiltration or holding the line in order to progress further down the map. With turn-based strategy you might have some luck with this game, aspecially with 40k IP, as the world needs a turn based 40k game. With RTS however, it seems like another clone of Dawn of War, but with many 'hero' units, maybe sort of like 'dota' map for Warcraft 3? In fact, following this trace, maybe your idea could be realized as a mod for DoW or a custom map with pre-set objectives and scripted events? The good things I see about this idea are : Customizations of units, control over each unit, attempt for different gameplay type The bad things are : Aim to annoy the player, going with RTS and massive micro management, focusing on mentioned gimmicks that have no impact on actual gameplay. In short: Good idea for turn based 40k, not bad idea for DoW Mod/Map, Shoddy idea for a new rts game.
  6. Being a producer, know how.

    Quote:Original post by tsloper Why don't you just go look them up on amazon.com??? In fact I did, Tom. And this did not yield many results, as the book proposed by you has close to no user comments, and synopsis is more or less the same in both cases, apart from fact that Irish's book is based on a real game and Chandler's is based on a fictious project (but with industry insiders!). That is why I have asked which of those has more useful matter to it, as apparently both of you have (?) read the proposed titles and could elaborate more regarding those positions. I have already ordered the proposed set of books from amazon when you have replied originally, and I am thinking now about modifying/cancelling it depending on the usefulness of Irish's book. I have also taken 'rules of the game' as it seems like a decent position about game dev in general. Thanks for the replies, and please save the oneliners for people that might actually need them ;-)
  7. Being a producer, know how.

    Quote:Original post by Hero Atanque Dont forget about The Game Producers Handbook-Dan Irish <Great Book> Is this book really different from "Game Production Handbook" advised by Tom? The titles look VERY similar, you have to admit it ;-)
  8. Being a producer, know how.

    Thanks Tom, I'll look into those ;-)
  9. Jack of all Trades

    Quote:Original post by thelovegoose I agree with most of that apart from the assertion that putting him on a level ground makes him the ultimate class to play. What if by improving all or most of your abilities you gradually improve more quickly, meaning that while in the short term they are inferior to anyone who's specialized, at some point in their growth can match the specialists' skill levels (or very nearly). In that case, there's no need for the specialist anymore. As the name hints - specialist is specialized in something, meaning that he's the only guy around who can do that. If you have a druid nuking targets and healing your party at the same time, why would you take two mages and two priests, while you can take 4 druids and just shift their role during the encounter? That's with assumption that they're doing it with at least 90% efficiency of the other class. The strenght of jack of all trades, or a hybrid class, is that it can combine multiple playstyles and adapt to the situation, while rigid specialized classes do not have that freedom. Giving such class too much advantage in any of the fields will leave to a severe class balance issue where too many people play the class as it is almost as good as others.
  10. Jack of all Trades

    The key point of jack of all trades is that he is the master of none. You cannot put him on 'level' ground with specialised classes, because that would be ultimate class to play. Tanks like a warrior, nukes like a mage, heals like a priest. Who would play those three classes then? The appeal of jack is to be able to combine multiple playstyles into one and do a variety of things, but to be as effective as the specialized classes, you need to use all of your abilities to complete any task. While a mage could easily kill the monster, you will have to whack it a bit longer, but then you can heal yourself, and withstand some damage. In the end the effect is the same, but you are more flexible both for yourself and the group. Druid in World of Warcraft seems to be a good example of multifaceted hybrid that does quite well. However, wow still requires you to specialize in some branch, so eventually you end up with 75% of base class A and 25% of two other classes. And yes that's 125%. Due to your flexibility you can pull out tricks other classes cannot, but when it comes to straigh efficiency with a given task, you're not as good as others.
  11. The best 'influence over the world' to date that I've seen in an MMO were : - Ultima Online - Neocron - Eve Onine Sadly, this chronological list offered less and less influence over the world by players. Let's try to define what influence over the world is in a MMORPG. Destroying the world that is already built is a no-no, as it will be used by malicious players to destroy the very core foundations of the game, or abused in any other way. Game designers take a lot of time to design the world, plot, characters and other fine details of a game system, and allowing players to plow through that will never be a good idea. What players CAN do, is to create their own content withing the game environment (Eve, UO), and then blow it to pieces depending on current political situation in their pixel neighborhood. They can also be thrown into a controlled pvp environment, where they can fight for dominance of certain parts of the world that give them global benefits while under their control (neocron). Coming back to lumberjacking - it was introduced back in UO, 10 years ago, and the tree would simply turn to non-harvestable after some time, only to replenish the resources some time later. In eve-online there is a nicely established core of the game where players are safe and free to do whatever they want, but there's also the outer space where there is no law, and players can blow themselves to pieces and create their own empires. This, in my opinion, is the golden balance between the flexibility of the game and player freedom. It gives the necessary backyard for all basic player needs, and a lot of free space for players to build and shape their game the way they want it. In controlled environment you could be able to take some of the NPC world through conquest, but it has to be planned carefuly, so players who do not wish to participate in such activities won't suffer. That's my stance. Too much freedom spoils it for everyone. Too little, or too limited world makes the game dull, at least for those raised on UO, where you could do just everything.
  12. What we have to realise is that game are played for FUN. What we also have to realize is that FUN in the game is proportional to length of play, and length of play is proportional to our earnings. This is where we jump in to the real world, Mr. Anderson. MMORPG games, or any other games except indie garage projects are made for money, sales, fame, fortune, not for higher values like artistic expression. Sure, you can realize yourself artistically, but you need to make the game FUN at the same point. Now, let's try to see what exactly is FUN for players. Fun is running around and killing stuff. Fun is crafting items and selling them. Fun is talking with other player. Fun is NOT dying. Players are caused major grief by any kind of death they incur. PvP, PvE, whatever. In games like wow, this means minimal repair cost, no gear, skill, or whatever loss. Only a few minutes of time. This alone can drive people away from the game, or get them pissed enough to ticket a GM because they cannot continue their shallow gameplay because of some other player. Let's look at mother of MMO games, Ultima online. Everything was fine and dandy, pvp system, hardcore and whatnot. But numbers started to dwindle, complaints started to pour in and they introduced felucca where no one could be attacked without consent. There was a reason. Take a look at world's most hardcore PvP MMO out there - Eve online. Even with superb (for its time) graphics, and very immersive world, the game reached 150k customers after 4 years of existence on the market *as the prime position in its genre*, only because death is so painful in eve, and you loose everything you had - EXCEPT THE CHARACTER. Now let's try to put permadeath into equation here somewhere. Who would pay you for a game where he has to start over every time he dies? Sure, you can level up pretty fast and start again. But that's 10 hours of pointless grind where you can die AGAIN. That's 10 hours from player's life he won't get back, and he will surely not appreciate that after the 3rd time or so. In any type of game players will not accept perma death, unless its marginal. It's fun to play ADOM every now and then, but it's just that *every now and then*, no one will pay a subscription for that type of gameplay. The only working permadeath to date was .. Quake. You die, you respawn, collect all the weapons again and jump into the fray. The whole process takes about a minute and gives the assailant a breather to reload the shotgun. Otherwise, it might be a good topic for theoretic studies, or some private ultima online shard for those 20 hardcore roleplayers. As a mainstream mmo 'feature' it just won't work. Sorry for being condescending, but I think it's important to face the reality sometimes ;-) No hard feelings.
  13. Hello everyone, This is not exactly on-topic with this forum, but most people involved in game design and production process are usually lurking here. I'm considering taking an (associate) producer position, and I was hoping that you could point me towards some resources describing the usual duties (those vary, i know) of that position, as well as some techniques and other friendly tips to get by as a producer. Any resources regarding the basic paradigms and techniques of game design would be terrific too (so far I've gone through majority of lostgarden.com). I have already gone through whole of sloperama, so it gives me a bit of perspective on how it is handled. Any additional resources or advice are very welcome. Thanks for your help in advance.
  14. opengl textures not showing up

    Make sure that texture[0] actually has a proper value. What you need as second parameter in bindtexture is unsigned int. Also, OpenGL starts indexing the textures from 1, rather than 0. So if your texture[0]==0, it explains your problem.
  15. AABB/OBB

    I have collision detection of sphere/aabb and aabb/aabb back at home, but I'm not very keen on waving my source around ;-) In essence, AABB is a box constructed from a vector anchored at minimal xyz vertex, and pointing towards maximum xyz vertex. It is aligned along the space axes, hence the Axis-Aligned. OBB is a bounding box oriented in a way which would minimize the size of the box around a given object. Quote:And trying to create a third square based on the bounding-volume of square-1, to get more of a visual of whats going on. What do you mean by that? AABB is simply a box from minimal to maximum point. Unless the object is modifying its geometry during run time, you should construct the volumes only once, and store them inside the object stucture, or inside a hierarchy, if you want to check more precise collision. I would advise, as usual, to take a piece of paper, a pen, and draw the whole problem on paper, draw all vectors and coordinates, and try to understand the problem at hand, before attempting to implement it. You would have to be more specific about what your problem is, and no, don't expect people to do your assignment for you ;-) Ps. If we're talking about the theory of this mechanism, please omit the d3d parts (since some people, myself included, might not know what they do). Describing what you do with the data in theory would be much more helpful.
  • Advertisement