Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by a1s:
<STRONG>uhm... I feel extremely stupid, but where in Fallout 2 does it say that the brotherhood has disbanded?</STRONG>

The BoS was declining because they didn't take in outsiders (Vault Dweller was an exception, and the splinter group featured in Fallout 3 will be another exception), but from a story perspective, they wouldn't truly disband the Brotherhood of Steel... it's been the symbol of the Fallout franchise since the beginning, and there's never been a game, spinoff or not, canon or not, that didn't have them in it.

Edit: When I say declining, that should go in context... in Fallout 2, the Brotherhood was much more widespread in reach than in Fallout 1, so it wasn't like they were falling apart or anything. But they didn't have the numbers of many of the other ascendant factions, and their technological advantage was becoming less critical.

[ February 13, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]

[Kagus]

What I was expecting from Spore was a simulator, not a game.  Something that would indeed allow me to create any kind of absurd creature I wanted, in any environment I wanted, and have them interact with other species and the environment.  

Spore is looking more and more like a game.  It is something where you create *your* species, form *your* civilization, and beat everyone else with sticks.  This isn't what I'm looking for.

It seems to have taken on a "no species left behind" position, wherein any creature, regardless of how unsuited it is to its environment or how many anuses it has, will have a chance at development into a sapient race.  On its own, this isn't that much of a problem (don't we all want a three-eyed gopher city?  I do), but since you're not given the full freedom to weed out the ridiculous creatures (anyone seen that tu-tu wearing thing in the screenshots page?), you'll be left in something of an unfortunate position.

If you do somehow manage to rid your world of that yellow and purple striped three-legged gigglebeast, it'll download one with five legs and a higher-pitched giggle to take its place.  Again, I have two problems with this:  1) The environment doesn't get a chance to throw itself out of balance.  You can't see the effects of having a link in the chain broken.  2) Having an active and creative community is indeed a great thing, and if they're prolific, all the better.  However, I want to be able to choose what parts of that community I have to deal with.  I don't want it forced on me just because 4 out of 5 twelve-year-olds choose clammels.

I've heard some early and tentative information about Spore, and I haven't liked a lot of what I've heard.  However, once it's out and a larger base of true information is available, I may change my mind.  

I won't rush out to the stores as soon as it's released, fifty-dollar bill in hand, but I will give it the chance to change my opinion of it with further details.

EDIT:  Oh, and the monolith probably comes from Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey".  It's been referenced ever since that movie came out.

[ February 14, 2008: Message edited by: Kagus ]

[Kayla]

Just another quick note while I'm sleepy. It's made by Will Wright, a game designer, so its not that hard to imagine this being a game over a simulation, and quite frankly, thats what it is. It's a game, designed for the masses, to please one part of our intellect that is getting decreasingly lower-usage, both in education and general life. Schools place a massive effort on mathematics, history, english (if you come from an english country ^_^), geography. Very little effort on creativity, and even then, some of the more poor American schools are completely canceling arts 'n crafts due to budget issues. This includes music as an art.

So from what I've seen, Will Wright knows this, and wants to A, teach people in a way that they'll learn from. B, let their creative juices flow. C, and make an enjoyable and fun last game.

So far, it looks like he's pulled those points off.

Now, as far as I know, all creature downloading is down at the beginning of the stage, if your just beginning that stage. Example, as you come out of the water onto land, it will 'download' all the creatures and then use them to populate. But what Won't happen is if you kill an entire species of creature, that they another creature will suddenly pop into existence. The point of downloading creatures, as previously mentioned, is to A, provide a community link, and B, provide challenge.

If you made the biggest and baddest monster and completely demolished anything else, then arises two problems. A, the game becomes less fun to you, as on a general whole, less challenge is less fun. (The opposite is true, too much challenge and you create frustration.) B, your creature is being spread around to other people (lest you disable it), so by making a 'super powerful' creature, you create frustration for other players, without even needing to be there. (That's talent I tell ya ^_^)

So, no, as a creature in the tidal/creature phase, you will never be the 'strongest', because as it 'pulls out' stronger creatures will become apparent to you. But as you enter the tribal, and civilization phases, your creatures as a whole, (both your own and other computer controlled 'your-monsters') have dominated. Everything on the planet then bows to them, and it would be possible, as far as I know, to make something go extinct, to make it forever dead. That said, to do that in tribal/creature phase would most likely destroy a possible food source.

Furthering upon that, once you get into space stage, it becomes very different. Now any individual creature can be created on any planet (or downloaded) without limit. But there still is some 'opposition', there is still some 'stronger space civilization', and as far as Spore is a game, I think there will forever be.

As you stated, I'm probably not going to spend some 60 dollars on pre-ordering and then rush out and spend another some few monies to get it first day. But I will get it, and I think that I will have fun making my creatures.

Then Starcraft 2 comes out and all hell breaks loose. SPORE? STARCRAFT? AHH! MY MIND ASPLOOOOODES!

*cough cough*

Kayla.

Edit: Changed sleeping to sleepy. Otherwise it would have read "Just another quick note while I'm sleeping." But writing that, while I'm sleeping, would've been hardcore, too hardcore for me.

[ February 14, 2008: Message edited by: Kayla ]

[Soulwynd]

Btw... For those worrying about the online bit...

quote:Aside from actual gameplay, the big theme of EA's presentation was user-generated content. It's clear that Spore has learnt much from Facebook and MySpace, and instead of being a separate component, the online community features are very much woven into the fabric of the game. In fact, much of Spore's terminology borrows directly from Web 2.0 vernacular; sporecasts let you subscribe to other users' creations, whereas sporepedia is the in-game directory for all of your content. Sporecasts will let you transmit and receive user-generated content, and you'll be able to search the entire Web based on ratings or specific tags (for example, "Doctor Who" or "purple"). We were shown how one of the designers had created a series of animals based on letters from the alphabet, and then put them in a set that can be downloaded by any Spore player online.

Also, spore is both a simulator and a game, just like DF is. They actually want you to be able to create any crazy creature you want and see how it will work, everything on a creature affects its behavior, from its speed to its ability to feed. Furthermore, when you get to space level, you can -design- ecosystems on bare planets with only creatures -you- want. As you get into genetic engineering you can mix creatures and I'm guessing you will be able to design new ones from scratch for your lil test planet. So yes, the end game, which can be reached in a few hours if gameplay if you want it, is a huge simulation and space warfare game.

[Cajoes]

I would just like to interject that Spore is no longer railroaded from single cell to space-fleet. You're free to pick any of the intermediate stages to "get a feel for it". Thank you.

Also: The enclave had frikkin oil. Which is made from dinosaurs and therefore pure Aweseomium. I'm surprised they were defeated by mere tribals as it was, - oh wait. Sorry. Vault Dweller descendants.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by Kagus:
<STRONG>It seems to have taken on a "no species left behind" position, wherein any creature, regardless of how unsuited it is to its environment or how many anuses it has, will have a chance at development into a sapient race.  On its own, this isn't that much of a problem (don't we all want a three-eyed gopher city?  I do), but since you're not given the full freedom to weed out the ridiculous creatures (anyone seen that tu-tu wearing thing in the screenshots page?), you'll be left in something of an unfortunate position.

If you do somehow manage to rid your world of that yellow and purple striped three-legged gigglebeast, it'll download one with five legs and a higher-pitched giggle to take its place.  Again, I have two problems with this:  1) The environment doesn't get a chance to throw itself out of balance.  You can't see the effects of having a link in the chain broken.  2) Having an active and creative community is indeed a great thing, and if they're prolific, all the better.  However, I want to be able to choose what parts of that community I have to deal with.  I don't want it forced on me just because 4 out of 5 twelve-year-olds choose clammels.</STRONG>

1) The details are still being worked out, but they have taken time to explain some of the mechanisms devoted to letting you control the content on your computer. Choosing what you like and don't like, and having the computer respect your preferences, is something they seem to have as a priority. If it does give you some crap creature, it's my understanding that you'll be able to go into your records, see that creature, see who created it, and say "Never, ever give me anything made by that person again."

2) Once it generates the planet, I don't think it will be dynamically spawning new creatures there. Maybe they will, but I doubt it. If you manage to genocide every species but your own on a planet, it's hard to imagine them not saying "more power to you".

3) Unless my memory fails me, they will allow you choose to associate with only the people you like. You can disconnect entirely from the community, or say you only want stuff from your buddy in Timbuktu.

[Guy]

I think at this point we can go a little easy on Kagus.  Kagus has established that he wants a simulation game.  Spore is not a simulation game (I'm not sure what kind of game to call it other than sandbox).  Therefore, Spore is not the kind of game Kagus is interested.

I wonder how long until DF simulates evolution.

[Kayla]

Well, I didn't mean to not-go easy on Kagus ('I didn't mean to go hard on him' sounds far too wrong), and I am sincerely sorry if it came out that way.

That said, if someone is looking for something that does have evolution, although in a drastically less complicated way, there is a program/game/thing called Darwin Bots, in which you 'program' a bot (in one of the more convulted languages), and then let it live out its cycles, feeding off of other bots, attacking, reproducing. Everytime a bot reproduces, the offspring has a possibility to alter the code and possibly mutate into something different or better. That said, I've not seen any cool patterns emerge on my own bots, but the possibility is there, and that is kind of cool. Its also free, so thats a plus.

Kayla.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by Guy:
<STRONG>I think at this point we can go a little easy on Kagus.  Kagus has established that he wants a simulation game.  Spore is not a simulation game (I'm not sure what kind of game to call it other than sandbox).  Therefore, Spore is not the kind of game Kagus is interested.</STRONG>

quote:Originally posted by Kayla:
<STRONG>Well, I didn't mean to not-go easy on Kagus ('I didn't mean to go hard on him' sounds far too wrong), and I am sincerely sorry if it came out that way.</STRONG>

I don't think anyone has been particularly hard on Kagus, it just sounds like a dogpile because some four people replied in a row that said something at least vaguely disagreeing with the same person. But at least as far as the discussion of Spore is concerned, everyone has been pretty respectful and focused on framing their replies in the context of their expectations and understanding of the game and its features.

Admittedly, I have to qualify that with "as far as the discussion of Spore is concerned", because I personally did some less-than-polite complaining about the responses to Fallout 3 (which isn't specifically about Torak, but the Fallout fanbase's ingrained hostility toward the game in general). Still, that was on a tangental topic and had nothing to do with Spore.

[Funkadelic Jive Turkey]

Regarding the Fallout 3 bit: My take on it is that it'll be a good mass appeal game and will alienate the core fan base. My friend who's never played F1 on account of it being turn based and old looking (which is not to say that he is a stupid person!,) is looking forward to it, and will probably enjoy it. I, being one of those 10+ year fans that regards it as a work of art, will probably be disappointed unless I manage to lower my empathy and expectations enough prior to release.

In a rough summary, I'd equate it to Dan Brown writing the sequel to Dostoevsky's "Brothers Karamazov". Sorry if I seem like another one of those rabid fallout trolls arising from 'neath the bridge.

[Kagus]

Ehh...  I don't think anyone's been being too hard on me (...), but I can see where it might appear to be so.  It's just stating opinions.  This is by no means a hostile conversation.

And Kayla, I was looking at Darwinbots before, but didn't look quite interesting enough...  It's not that I want the cold hard mechanics of evolution laid out in program form in front of me, it's just that I'd rather have cause and effect logic than spontaneous logic.  A sandbox.

As for Fallout 3, I didn't even know they were planning a Fallout 3.  I haven't played much of the old ones (just the demos), but I liked what I did play.  Who knows what the new one will turn out to be.

Personally, I'm happy enough with Dwarf Fortress for now.  Also, I'd like to go to bed, as it's rather late here.  That's my opinion on the matter.

[Vodalian]

quote:Originally posted by Jonathan S. Fox:
I disagree with the idea that if the game isn't specifically to your tastes it's horrible. Oblivion was well done for what they set out to do, with many experimental features, some of which were better than others. It was extremely popular regardless.

That is totally wrong. Oblivion has pretty graphics, that's it. Did you even read all of the previews up until the release? It was 80% false advertising. The only thing they lived up to was pretty graphics and a far view distance. All they did was fill a fair sized map with generic items and caves, with some pretty towns scattered about. Just read the previews and you will see what I mean. One of the biggest features they propped was 'radiant AI', where they promised that each NPC would be totally unpredictable and live a unique life, kind of like the NPC's in DF adventure mode, they even advertised it after releasing the game, yet if you play the game or look in the construction set, there is no sign of this AI, all the NPC's do is follow predefined walking schedules at certain times, or play an animation at a certain time. If releasing an unfinished game wasn't enough, they decide to start selling mods, some of which were features they originally promised to be in the game in the first place.

Bethesda has become another EA, all looks and no substance just so it can look pretty in magazines to satisfy some publisher and make millions.

These companies could really learn a lot from people like toady.

[subject name here]

If Bethesda was like toady then every game would take eight years to make, and only after scrapping a previous game to get more time for spend on the current one. And they'd still only have not even 10% of the planned features implanted.

PS: Before some enraged fanboy jumps at me with a boring tl:dr reply I'm kidding.

[Cthulhu]

I heard "Mass appeal" mentioned about Fallout, I think the same thing is going on in Spore.  Remember the first video?  The graphics were meh, but the creatures looked much more realistic than they do now.  I read an article somewhere about a talk Will Wright gave, where he mentioned EA breathing down his neck for a larger fanbase.  I think this is probably the reason for the sudden increase in cuteness over the past year or two.  Remember, whenever something goes wrong, blame the most powerful entity nearby.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by Vodalian:
<STRONG>That is totally wrong. Oblivion has pretty graphics, that's it. Did you even read all of the previews up until the release? It was 80% false advertising. The only thing they lived up to was pretty graphics and a far view distance. All they did was fill a fair sized map with generic items and caves, with some pretty towns scattered about. Just read the previews and you will see what I mean. One of the biggest features they propped was 'radiant AI', where they promised that each NPC would be totally unpredictable and live a unique life, kind of like the NPC's in DF adventure mode, they even advertised it after releasing the game, yet if you play the game or look in the construction set, there is no sign of this AI, all the NPC's do is follow predefined walking schedules at certain times, or play an animation at a certain time. If releasing an unfinished game wasn't enough, they decide to start selling mods, some of which were features they originally promised to be in the game in the first place.

Bethesda has become another EA, all looks and no substance just so it can look pretty in magazines to satisfy some publisher and make millions.

These companies could really learn a lot from people like toady.</STRONG>

I'm somebody who judges a game based on the game it is, and not the game it could have been if it wasn't... um, the game it is. I respect companies like Blizzard and Valve, companies so successful that they can afford to keep going until they get everything just right, but there are very few companies with cashflow like that.

I'm not going to dispute with you over whether Bethesdia lied to everyone and pretended to implement a house AI engine and didn't, if that's what you're suggesting by saying there's "no sign" of it. As a programmer and someone interested in AI myself, I did not see anything they bragged about that wasn't evidenced in the game. I think a lot of people imagined that much of the behavior they showed off in previews was emergent, but that was wrong -- AI just isn't that advanced, game or otherwise. I won't blame that on people misinterpreting it though, it's more a matter of spin in advertising than anything. But like I said, I don't judge games on the hype.

In game development, there are always features that don't make it in, always aspects of the game that don't work out, new technologies that prove to be unweildy, harder than anticipated to develop, or just not fun at all. It's not unusual at all for expansion pack material to be things that they wanted to do in the original, but ended up dropping for lack of time. It's not morally reprehensible for them to publish add-ons that they originally wanted to be part of the main game, but it's just ratty marketing.

Oblivion is the 12th highest rated PC game, the 4th highest rated Xbox 360 game, and the 2nd highest rated PS3 game of all time on gamerankings.com. Trying to portray it and the company that made it as a sack of failed poo is just plain wrong by an objective standard.

quote:Originally posted by subject name here:
<STRONG>If Bethesda was like toady then every game would take eight years to make, and only after scrapping a previous game to get more time for spend on the current one. And they'd still only have not even 10% of the planned features implanted.

PS: Before some enraged fanboy jumps at me with a boring tl:dr reply I'm kidding.</STRONG>

Kidding or not, it's true. That isn't a criticism of Bay 12 Games, it's just a fact of life for the industry -- companies set out with a more modest goal they can achieve without burning their pockets too deep, and then experiment with it and change it and eventually shrink their list of features from there. They don't go long and grind at it for years to move heaven and earth and bring tears to the eyes of the people, doing incremental releases for free and subsisting on the donations of fans in the mean time. I respect what Toady is doing, but it's not much of a model for 30+ person development houses. Those people expect salaries of $40,000 (US) and upwards, and have families to support. Bay 12 Games made $19,000 in 2007. Much love for Toady, but it just doesn't work to try to expand it on broader scale.

quote:Originally posted by Funkadelic Jive Turkey:
<STRONG>Regarding the Fallout 3 bit: My take on it is that it'll be a good mass appeal game and will alienate the core fan base. My friend who's never played F1 on account of it being turn based and old looking (which is not to say that he is a stupid person!,) is looking forward to it, and will probably enjoy it. I, being one of those 10+ year fans that regards it as a work of art, will probably be disappointed unless I manage to lower my empathy and expectations enough prior to release.</STRONG>

Being an old fan of the original games is necessary for indignation over Bethesda getting the IP, but it's not enough in itself. I loved the games. I just have no illusions about ever getting Fallout 1. I say, enjoy what you CAN get instead of complaining about what you can't! If some established company comes along, buys up the XCom IP, and announces XCom 3, obviously they're not going to make a remake of the original game. But if you want the original, PLAY the original! Fallout's harder to say that with, because it's story based -- it's never as magical as the first time, and fans want that magic back. But it's over, it's not going to happen, the company disbanded, life has moved on, and any new Fallout is not going to be the same as the old ones.

Now somebody else has the property and they're honored with the opportunity to make a sequel. And seriously, people in the game development industry, they're there because they love games, and they want to make fun things. It's not like these guys are there to vandalize all good in the world, they're honored and humbled by it. It's like movie adaptations of The Lord of the Rings. Tolkein's dead, he can't provide authority. Many people have had their take on it. It doesn't diminish the books if somebody makes a bad movie based on it. If you like the story, just go and enjoy some new movie maker's take on it, and don't expect it to be the same feeling you got when you first read the books.

And in case it isn't obvious, yes, I'm an old Fallout fan too. I just don't share the tremendous feeling of resentment. It's not all Bethesda's fault that everyone's so mad, though... it's the built up resentment at having had to endure off-genre non-canon knockoffs in Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, and the cancellation of Van Buren. I think the reason Fallout is such a lightning rod for frustration by the old fans is that there's just an almost irrational gut reaction by many people to say "It's dead! You killed it already! Just leave it to rest in peace! Stop making Fallout games unless you can adhere strictly to the originals!"

Personally, if the game is as spiritually accurate as Fallout was to Wasteland, and respects the Fallout canon, I'm not going to quibble over the implementation details.

quote:Originally posted by Muffles:
<STRONG>I heard "Mass appeal" mentioned about Fallout, I think the same thing is going on in Spore. Remember the first video? The graphics were meh, but the creatures looked much more realistic than they do now. I read an article somewhere about a talk Will Wright gave, where he mentioned EA breathing down his neck for a larger fanbase. I think this is probably the reason for the sudden increase in cuteness over the past year or two. Remember, whenever something goes wrong, blame the most powerful entity nearby.</STRONG>

I'm not too fond of the cartoony art style, but my personal feeling on it is that they most likely did it to lower the standards on believability for the creatures generated. It's a significant accomplishment to have done what they did with the creature toolset, and it may have been too much to ask for them to make it look realistic. I would bet that instead of try for realism and fall short, they restrained the objectives to something they knew they could achieve.