I recently tried out another popular title called "League of Legends". It is free to play with micro transactions that allow players to unlock various heroes and looks for said heroes. The first thing that I noticed was the control scheme employed. One does not control ones hero directly, rather one clicks a location where one wants the hero to go and the hero responds accordingly. There are 4 skills per hero which can be activated via keyboard or by clicking on them with the mouse. I found the experience to be more along the control scheme found in RTS (Real Time Strategy) games where one acts as a commander who tells the troops where to go.
Since the majority of the player controls in my game will be based on the standard FPS(first person shooter) control system I'm thinking that when it comes time to market the game I will need to say that it is an MMO FPS game. Yes there is the commander position, but that position and the control scheme when in a commanding ship (which will be more similar to the RTS control scheme) will be a very small portion of the game that many players may not even experience. While commanders also won't be able to control anything directly like in RTS games, they will be able to set waypoints that all under their command or even in the faction can see, they will be able to set a wireframe equivalent of the structures to guide the ground troops, and they will be able to sound alarms in a given hexfield if they find an enemy force is present.
I find that people have spent years developing skill sets in these various schemes, which is why I don't see them going away any time soon
Showing posts with label fps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fps. Show all posts
07 August, 2012
05 June, 2012
The Timeline
I was considering going back and editing older posts to reflect some changes in ideas that I have, but I have reconsidered since I would prefer that this blog outline the whole process and evolution of this game from beginning to end. That being said there may be some repeat posts coming up as I need to update certain aspects. The changes won't be particularly large, rather a refinement of previously discussed concepts.
As far as where I am in the process now, I am having to go back and relearn Blender after taking a break from it while in school. I'm finding that I understand quite a bit more about haw the program works now that I have taken linear algebra. I'm also reading Mathematics for 3D Game Programming & Computer Graphics and I'm starting into OpenGL. I still have a lot to learn, and keeping up with all possible technologies is proving to be an overwhelming challenge, so I'm going to work to keep it as simple as I can at this point.
As far as where I am in the process now, I am having to go back and relearn Blender after taking a break from it while in school. I'm finding that I understand quite a bit more about haw the program works now that I have taken linear algebra. I'm also reading Mathematics for 3D Game Programming & Computer Graphics and I'm starting into OpenGL. I still have a lot to learn, and keeping up with all possible technologies is proving to be an overwhelming challenge, so I'm going to work to keep it as simple as I can at this point.
24 March, 2012
Spring Break and Math Stuff
So I have finally come to spring break this semester, though it won't be much of one as I said that I would be available to work in the computer labs (which I anticipate that those labs will be empty). It will be nice to have a little break from new information though.
On the brighter side I finally got to the section of linear algebra that helps me figure out how to do the triangular tessellations that I was hoping to construct the landscape from. Standard Minecraft style games use the standard x = 1, y = 1, z =1 3d coordinate system, which makes a lot of sense since that is by far the easiest way to represent something in 3d. These are known as the unit vectors and are written as x = (1,0,0), y = (0,1,0), and z = (0,0,1). There is a lot more to it, but I won't bore you with the details. For games the screen will represent an x,y plane because well, lets face it, it is really a 2 dimensional space. Even "3d" monitors and TVs are just a combination of 2 2d planes which creates the illusion of 3d.
So taking the height component as the y, I have figured out that y will still remain a good old 1. The x component will need to be .5, but not on every line rather every other line. The z component is the nasty one as it will be the square root of 3 divided by 2 instead of 1. So my plan is to create a constant variable called DEPTH ( constants are supposed in all caps like that) which is equal to the square root of 3 divided by 2. The z can be expressed as a number of DEPTHS, then if there is an even amount of z the x component will be the normal 1, 2 ,3 etc. but if the amount of z is odd, then x will be 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc... Now I wish to clarify that this is just for finding the points which are the corners of each triblock.
Now many of you are probably thinking why not copy the cubic approach that everyone else is using, since it equates to much less work. I guess that the answer is that I am just stubborn, that and I don't wan this to be dismissed as yet another Minecraft ripoff ( which may happen anyway, but at least I can claim that it is different).
On the brighter side I finally got to the section of linear algebra that helps me figure out how to do the triangular tessellations that I was hoping to construct the landscape from. Standard Minecraft style games use the standard x = 1, y = 1, z =1 3d coordinate system, which makes a lot of sense since that is by far the easiest way to represent something in 3d. These are known as the unit vectors and are written as x = (1,0,0), y = (0,1,0), and z = (0,0,1). There is a lot more to it, but I won't bore you with the details. For games the screen will represent an x,y plane because well, lets face it, it is really a 2 dimensional space. Even "3d" monitors and TVs are just a combination of 2 2d planes which creates the illusion of 3d.
So taking the height component as the y, I have figured out that y will still remain a good old 1. The x component will need to be .5, but not on every line rather every other line. The z component is the nasty one as it will be the square root of 3 divided by 2 instead of 1. So my plan is to create a constant variable called DEPTH ( constants are supposed in all caps like that) which is equal to the square root of 3 divided by 2. The z can be expressed as a number of DEPTHS, then if there is an even amount of z the x component will be the normal 1, 2 ,3 etc. but if the amount of z is odd, then x will be 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc... Now I wish to clarify that this is just for finding the points which are the corners of each triblock.
Now many of you are probably thinking why not copy the cubic approach that everyone else is using, since it equates to much less work. I guess that the answer is that I am just stubborn, that and I don't wan this to be dismissed as yet another Minecraft ripoff ( which may happen anyway, but at least I can claim that it is different).
17 December, 2011
Builder try 1
Soldier try #2
21 November, 2011
More research on MMO
So in looking around at some new MMOs coming out soon I came across a few that are implementing systems similar to what I would like to set up. Firefall is looking to be very interesting, especially since it is:
1. Free to Play
2. Players will be able to change roles by equipping "battleframes", which is something similar to what I was hoping to set up.
3. They will have microtransactions, but they are insistent on making sure that cash items will not effect game balance.
4. It's an FPS MMO set up in a persistent world setting.
I'm not able to play it yet as they are still in the early stages of beta, but I'll be sure to analyze it once I get the chance. There are a few others too, but this one really caught my eye.
1. Free to Play
2. Players will be able to change roles by equipping "battleframes", which is something similar to what I was hoping to set up.
3. They will have microtransactions, but they are insistent on making sure that cash items will not effect game balance.
4. It's an FPS MMO set up in a persistent world setting.
I'm not able to play it yet as they are still in the early stages of beta, but I'll be sure to analyze it once I get the chance. There are a few others too, but this one really caught my eye.
07 September, 2011
Gravel Block
15 August, 2011
Hardcore vs. Casual
In my years of playing video games I have noticed a distinct difference between players and playing types. One set that players will tend to label themselves is hardcore as opposed to casual. These two classifications often find themselves at odds with one another. I think that a big challenge is how to appeal to both types of play style without it feeling like one or the other is being favored in any way.
These two types are usually differentiated by one main criteria, time. Hardcore players are players who will spend what may be considered abnormally large amounts of time playing games. What this amounts to is the feeling that they will have an edge on other players in some way. In an MMORPG what the hours and hours of time translate into is them having really good equipment or an understanding of game mechanics that will make them very powerful relative to other players. In an FPS game it will mean a greater understanding of the map, a knowledge of where and when the best weapons and powerups are can be located, which again gives them an advantage over other players. Because of the amount of time that these players spend in a game they prefer a high level of attention to detail, especially to gameplay. They understand that a game does not have to have the best graphics or largest budget to be fun (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hardcore%20gamer). Unfortunately the hardcore gamer often has little patience or respect for the casual gamer since they often are in no position to be competitive and will often complain about the unfairness of having unfavorable odds. Casual gamers often enjoy video games on a much smaller scale, and they do it for the purpose of relaxation and fun. They also make up over 90% of the market, as very few people can or want to devote hours and hours of time to playing games. I know that I have played games where the social pressure to play made it seem like a full time job (not fun anymore).
My problem is that there are some hard core gamers who ruin the experience for the casual gamers. This happens because the hard core crowd has such an advantage in a game and will often do everything in their power to crush any hope the casual crowd has so they (in the hard core mind's eye) are running and crying to mommy. Now I do realize there are some in the hard core crowd who are not included in this rather unfavorable way of looking at them, but the fact that there are even a small number of players like this in a game can make it unenjoyable and uncomfortable for many, many more players in a game. I admit there have been more than one game that has been ruined for me by players who felt the need to show me how I had no place playing there. This quote, again from Urbandictionary.com, puts it rather succinctly.
Hardcore gamers are no less ridiculous than a "pin the tail on the donkey" elitist, who shows up to a birthday party with their own pins and blindfold, won't shut up about you're "spinning all wrong" then looks shocked, as to why the rest of the guests find them socially repulsive.
The harsh reality is that casual gamers may not know this game even exists for a long time while hard core gamers will provide the initial audience and will probably determine whether the game is successful enough to make it past the first year of existence. So how do I appeal to all types of player? I think that taking out leveling and "the grind" of any kind will help a lot in appealing to casual gamers, who may only desire to spend at most an hour a day playing this game. And let's face it, there is a lot of competition for the attention of all players out there. If anyone has any good suggestions on this I would appreciate the help.
Also for more insight into gamers look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer.
These two types are usually differentiated by one main criteria, time. Hardcore players are players who will spend what may be considered abnormally large amounts of time playing games. What this amounts to is the feeling that they will have an edge on other players in some way. In an MMORPG what the hours and hours of time translate into is them having really good equipment or an understanding of game mechanics that will make them very powerful relative to other players. In an FPS game it will mean a greater understanding of the map, a knowledge of where and when the best weapons and powerups are can be located, which again gives them an advantage over other players. Because of the amount of time that these players spend in a game they prefer a high level of attention to detail, especially to gameplay. They understand that a game does not have to have the best graphics or largest budget to be fun (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hardcore%20gamer). Unfortunately the hardcore gamer often has little patience or respect for the casual gamer since they often are in no position to be competitive and will often complain about the unfairness of having unfavorable odds. Casual gamers often enjoy video games on a much smaller scale, and they do it for the purpose of relaxation and fun. They also make up over 90% of the market, as very few people can or want to devote hours and hours of time to playing games. I know that I have played games where the social pressure to play made it seem like a full time job (not fun anymore).
My problem is that there are some hard core gamers who ruin the experience for the casual gamers. This happens because the hard core crowd has such an advantage in a game and will often do everything in their power to crush any hope the casual crowd has so they (in the hard core mind's eye) are running and crying to mommy. Now I do realize there are some in the hard core crowd who are not included in this rather unfavorable way of looking at them, but the fact that there are even a small number of players like this in a game can make it unenjoyable and uncomfortable for many, many more players in a game. I admit there have been more than one game that has been ruined for me by players who felt the need to show me how I had no place playing there. This quote, again from Urbandictionary.com, puts it rather succinctly.
Hardcore gamers are no less ridiculous than a "pin the tail on the donkey" elitist, who shows up to a birthday party with their own pins and blindfold, won't shut up about you're "spinning all wrong" then looks shocked, as to why the rest of the guests find them socially repulsive.
The harsh reality is that casual gamers may not know this game even exists for a long time while hard core gamers will provide the initial audience and will probably determine whether the game is successful enough to make it past the first year of existence. So how do I appeal to all types of player? I think that taking out leveling and "the grind" of any kind will help a lot in appealing to casual gamers, who may only desire to spend at most an hour a day playing this game. And let's face it, there is a lot of competition for the attention of all players out there. If anyone has any good suggestions on this I would appreciate the help.
Also for more insight into gamers look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer.
09 August, 2011
A paradigm shift
I have been looking at my own motivations for making this game and what I hope to accomplish with it. I think what I hope to accomplish is to at minimum plant the idea that there needs to be a paradigm shift as far as online gaming is concerned. I have been playing games for a very long time and I have seen a great many different kinds. I have seen the amount of detail that is put into game creation and now that I am learning the process I am very impressed with what some companies have been able to produce. I know that I have said it before, but I think that they are just repacking the same game with newer and fancier graphics. So I thought that I would sit down and look at where FPS games in particular are at now and what can be done to break out of the paradigm.
First thing that comes to mind is the map. Players often complain about how a map gets old after playing it over and over again. I think the problem is that basic strategy of a map will not change once people have figured out the fastest or most effective way to win on it. Map creation is a time consuming process and relative to how long someone is playing on a map it may be a 1:1000 ratio, meaning that even if players are also making maps new maps can't be made fast enough before players get bored of playing on them. I think the problem here is that the average time I have seen on a map is perhaps 15 to 30 minutes. Once the objectives are reached a new map has to load up and the cycle begins again. So that would mean that even in a situation where say 100 maps are ready to go at a game launch a player will have played most of them within 50 hours of game play assuming they play all of the different game styles, and within 100 to 200 hours of gameplay all basic strategy and tactics have been established and the game is no longer a challenge. Humans help a little in this because playing with humans means that there will be an element of unpredictability and challenge simply by virtue of the fact that new players are constantly joining the game and they will all be a different levels of competence and knowledge of game play. To counter this problem I propose to make simpler maps with an element of randomness thrown in so that things will never get to the point where the game is always the same. Games like Minecraft and Ace of Spades have shown me that a game does not need to have an immaculate landscape in order to be enjoyable. Also having a persistent world where there is not a timer saying go and everyone starting out from the beginning spawn points all at the same time will make it so there is no 30 minutes and start over again aspect.
Second thing that comes to mind is the objectives. Often maps will have one objective which players know from the beginning, whether that is to kill more enemies than your enemies kill you, or to capture a flag, hold territory, destroy the enemy base first, etc.... Often these objectives are accomplished relatively quickly, which means that a new map needs to be set up and the process started over again. Because people are familiar with these simple objectives they get used over and over again, sometimes with simple variations on the theme, but usually they all come back to the same strategy and tactics that are useful in short term confrontations that will only last for 30 minutes or less. What I would like to see changed here especially is the length of time to accomplish the overall objective and some player creativity in making shorter term objectives in order to reach the overall objective. I think that if it took at minimum a day to accomplish an objective then strategies and tactics would evolve more slowly and would have a greater amount of variance. If that overall objective became even longer to achieve then there would be an even greater amount of variance bordering on what happens in real warfare. By simplifying the system the game won't be as complicated as real life warfare, but it should be much more interesting than a 30 minute skirmish. The downside to this is that it won't be as action packed as your standard multiplayer FPS, but there are already hundreds of them for the player who needs the high speed action. Luckily in videogames it is possible to take out some of the more boring aspects of real life warfare, like the days spent in travel, the hours and hours of waiting patiently on guard duty or doing menial tasks while waiting for orders, or the mind numbing aspects of intelligence gathering and analysis. These activities will still be there for those who desire to participate in them, but teleporting makes travel a non issue, bases will still need to be guarded but alarms and base defense items can help with this, and intelligence gathering in games is aided by the simplicity of the system and will doubtfully require a large amount of mind numbingness.
I'm sure there are other aspects I would like to see change, but these are the main ones. I realize that a paradigm shift takes a lot of effort and much persuasion by those who have the vision of the new paradigm. I think that sitting down and writing this out will help me as I organize my arguments for why changes need to happen, and maybe, just maybe there is someone reading this who can make a larger difference than I am currently able to.
First thing that comes to mind is the map. Players often complain about how a map gets old after playing it over and over again. I think the problem is that basic strategy of a map will not change once people have figured out the fastest or most effective way to win on it. Map creation is a time consuming process and relative to how long someone is playing on a map it may be a 1:1000 ratio, meaning that even if players are also making maps new maps can't be made fast enough before players get bored of playing on them. I think the problem here is that the average time I have seen on a map is perhaps 15 to 30 minutes. Once the objectives are reached a new map has to load up and the cycle begins again. So that would mean that even in a situation where say 100 maps are ready to go at a game launch a player will have played most of them within 50 hours of game play assuming they play all of the different game styles, and within 100 to 200 hours of gameplay all basic strategy and tactics have been established and the game is no longer a challenge. Humans help a little in this because playing with humans means that there will be an element of unpredictability and challenge simply by virtue of the fact that new players are constantly joining the game and they will all be a different levels of competence and knowledge of game play. To counter this problem I propose to make simpler maps with an element of randomness thrown in so that things will never get to the point where the game is always the same. Games like Minecraft and Ace of Spades have shown me that a game does not need to have an immaculate landscape in order to be enjoyable. Also having a persistent world where there is not a timer saying go and everyone starting out from the beginning spawn points all at the same time will make it so there is no 30 minutes and start over again aspect.
Second thing that comes to mind is the objectives. Often maps will have one objective which players know from the beginning, whether that is to kill more enemies than your enemies kill you, or to capture a flag, hold territory, destroy the enemy base first, etc.... Often these objectives are accomplished relatively quickly, which means that a new map needs to be set up and the process started over again. Because people are familiar with these simple objectives they get used over and over again, sometimes with simple variations on the theme, but usually they all come back to the same strategy and tactics that are useful in short term confrontations that will only last for 30 minutes or less. What I would like to see changed here especially is the length of time to accomplish the overall objective and some player creativity in making shorter term objectives in order to reach the overall objective. I think that if it took at minimum a day to accomplish an objective then strategies and tactics would evolve more slowly and would have a greater amount of variance. If that overall objective became even longer to achieve then there would be an even greater amount of variance bordering on what happens in real warfare. By simplifying the system the game won't be as complicated as real life warfare, but it should be much more interesting than a 30 minute skirmish. The downside to this is that it won't be as action packed as your standard multiplayer FPS, but there are already hundreds of them for the player who needs the high speed action. Luckily in videogames it is possible to take out some of the more boring aspects of real life warfare, like the days spent in travel, the hours and hours of waiting patiently on guard duty or doing menial tasks while waiting for orders, or the mind numbing aspects of intelligence gathering and analysis. These activities will still be there for those who desire to participate in them, but teleporting makes travel a non issue, bases will still need to be guarded but alarms and base defense items can help with this, and intelligence gathering in games is aided by the simplicity of the system and will doubtfully require a large amount of mind numbingness.
I'm sure there are other aspects I would like to see change, but these are the main ones. I realize that a paradigm shift takes a lot of effort and much persuasion by those who have the vision of the new paradigm. I think that sitting down and writing this out will help me as I organize my arguments for why changes need to happen, and maybe, just maybe there is someone reading this who can make a larger difference than I am currently able to.
06 August, 2011
Gearing up for school
Ok so I think I'm all set as far as school for fall is concerned. I have bought my books, and I have realized that I will be learning in separate classes C++, C#, and Java. I have heard that the languages are similar and from what I have seen so far there are only minor changes between them. I just hope I am able to keep the syntax between all of them clear in my mind, but after Chinese I think that these languages are going to be much easier to learn. I'm in for a rough semester though. I hope that by the end of it I will have a much better idea of the process than I currently have. I feel a little excited about it. I also feel a little nervous. Wish me luck.
01 August, 2011
Skinner boxes
I have noticed and I also admit to being manipulated by what is known as a skinner box. To make a long story short a psychologist by the name of B F Skinner figured out that he could make pigeons do all kinds of weird things by setting up a reward system for the targeted behavior. So for example if you want the pigeon to turn around in little circles then every time the pigeon starts to turn a seed is deposited into a feeding tray. The trick is to drop seeds at longer and longer intervals so that the behavior becomes more and more cemented. By the time your done the pigeon will circle for minutes in order to get the food. The reason I bring this up is that the principle is often used in video games to keep players playing games. This is commonly found in role playing games where at the beginning of the game one gets levels and new equipment pretty fast, and then later on in the game the pace slows down and it takes longer to go up to the next level and get better equipment. Eventually it may be months in between the time that you see any appreciable increase in the game. Just as soon as you think you have finally reached the end, you are at the highest level and have the best of the best gear, they bring out an expansion and the whole process gets added onto for the next few months or even years. And yet players will continue to play because they have been conditioned to do so.
I'm writing this as a kind of rant because I have realized that this process is going on and yet I get pulled into it again and again. From what I have found in my research this is commonly referred to as a "hook", or an addictive element of a game that keep you coming back again and again even after is ceases to be fun or even remotely entertaining. The biggest problem I see in this is that people get so hooked on games that they start to neglect almost everything else in their life. I know that it has been a serious problem in my life on more than one occasion. So I would like to make an enjoyable game that isn't as addictive as many MMO's have been specifically designed to be. The other problem I run into is that I know that this is going to take money to work, and not just something to get it started, but upkeep and updates and the list goes on and on. I am hopeful that many people are turning to independent game developers to return to games roots where if it's not fun then players won't play. It is just the challenge of how do you get people to support the unknown and new. After all the biggest competition is for the money of the consumer, and business will go to great lengths to get it. I guess that in the end the goal of making this game and the master's degree will help me even if the game is not successful as I am hoping it will be.
If you are interested to find out more about do a Google search for "video game skinner box". What you find is pretty eye opening.
I'm writing this as a kind of rant because I have realized that this process is going on and yet I get pulled into it again and again. From what I have found in my research this is commonly referred to as a "hook", or an addictive element of a game that keep you coming back again and again even after is ceases to be fun or even remotely entertaining. The biggest problem I see in this is that people get so hooked on games that they start to neglect almost everything else in their life. I know that it has been a serious problem in my life on more than one occasion. So I would like to make an enjoyable game that isn't as addictive as many MMO's have been specifically designed to be. The other problem I run into is that I know that this is going to take money to work, and not just something to get it started, but upkeep and updates and the list goes on and on. I am hopeful that many people are turning to independent game developers to return to games roots where if it's not fun then players won't play. It is just the challenge of how do you get people to support the unknown and new. After all the biggest competition is for the money of the consumer, and business will go to great lengths to get it. I guess that in the end the goal of making this game and the master's degree will help me even if the game is not successful as I am hoping it will be.
If you are interested to find out more about do a Google search for "video game skinner box". What you find is pretty eye opening.
21 July, 2011
World of Tanks
So I have been trying out a few free to play models and I came across World of Tanks. This game is one where players participate in short tank battles over and over again. The player earns experience and money through these battles which allows them to research and purchase higher quality and more powerful tanks and equipment. There is also a currency that can be purchased with real money which gives players access to specialized equipment or premium memberships. I feel that there is very little in the way of socializing in this MMO as the vast majority of battles are random battles with complete strangers. The draw that I can see would be the idea of progress and the desire to get the best of the best so that one can easily destroy the opposing tanks. With a system of horizontal leveling that I am proposing the idea of progress will still be there, but not as strong a driving force since everyone will still be on a level playing field. The desire to win and dominate will still be a driving for many since the competition will still be there, they just won't get a large advantage because they have been playing longer. Also I think that having teamwork being essential that people will be drawn by the social aspects of the game. I might have to figure out a way to add in special items that can be purchased for real money as a way to support the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)