Ice Nine...

[Vince]

This thread is getting stupid.

Yes it is. Ben has this tendency, similar to that saying, "argue with an idiot and he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience" - except that instead of stupidity, he'll totally ignore the big picture or most of the picture and instead make an argument out of the 1 or 2 sub-points that he has a chance of winning. So, in the end, he's draged you down, and your (a) arguing in circles, (b) arguing about an unrelated topic.

You have a very, very serious comprehension problem with this one. Your line is that graphics are a driving force behind gameplay which is of course absurd(by definition).

No, thats not my 'line' - maybe if you'd go back and read what i wrote... you'd understand what I'm saying - just like everyone else


Unrelated, but just a thought, have you ever seen Enemy at the Gates? The use of shadow and lighting (reflection, even to blind others) would definatly open up a whole bunch of new gameplay opertunities. The possibilities are huge if developers are given the ability to draw it. Going to be fun times.

 

[Legion]

Vince i totally agree with you on this.

what is "gameplay"? Again it is the sum of all interactive features of a game you will run into while playing a game. This includes graphical features.

How can you say graphics don't contribute to gameplay experience?

 

[marconelly!]

OK, can someone comment on how the shadows that your and enemy characters cast in MGS2 and Splinter Cell, that you can use to spot enemy behid the corner and vice versa, do not affect gameplay?

How would such a feature be implemented in a game using wolfenstein engine, or something even less advanced?

 

[BenSkywalker]

OK, can someone comment on how the shadows that your and enemy characters cast in MGS2 and Splinter Cell, that you can use to spot enemy behid the corner and vice versa, do not affect gameplay?

It is simply a differing visual cue for an existing formula. Instead of using line of sight directly, you can use line of sight on the shadows. It helps immersion, it still is the same gameplay mechanics.

 

[marconelly!]

It is simply a differing visual cue for an existing formula. Instead of using line of sight directly, you can use line of sight on the shadows. It helps immersion, it still is the same gameplay mechanics.

I think it's completely different, actually. If I can see that someone is behind the corner, throw a bomb and kill him, it's very much different than placing him into my line of sight and risking to be seen and shot by him. How is that not a different gameplay? It changes the whole way you approach and play the game, actually.

 

[London Geezer]

i think what ben is trying to say is, basically if your character was visible but turned the other way so that he doesnt face u, u'd still throw a bomb and kill him.....

the shadow thing is only a different situation which doesn't necessarily add anything to the whole stealth gameplay.... u are still *sneaking around people*.... the fact that u only see his shadow means that u are more *hidden* than other situations........

dont think i made myself clear

 

[BenSkywalker]

I think it's completely different, actually. If I can see that someone is behind the corner, throw a bomb and kill him, it's very much different than placing him into my line of sight and risking to be seen and shot by him. How is that not a different gameplay? It changes the whole way you approach and play the game, actually.

In the old MG for the NES you could see when an enemy was around the corner without a clear line of sight and could toss a grenade around the corner without risking being seen. This was done back in the 80s. The difference now is in graphics presentation which leads to a more immersive experience, not new gameplay elements.

 

[marconelly!]

So what about him (the AI enemy) being able to see my shadow and act accordingly? It again changes the rules as I have to watch out for every light and to know where my shadow will go before I start running around.

 

[Vince]

In the old MG for the NES you could see when an enemy was around the corner without a clear line of sight and could toss a grenade around the corner without risking being seen.

While your pondering that one, tell me how you'd duplicate the addition of real-time reflections (ie. a mirror) addition to gameplay in games that utilize CQB or Special Tactics style games?

Or how you could provide a gameplay experience like Combat Mission - which is unilaterally agreed to be a revolution in wargaming - using 2D or your text-based games.

Or how you'd pull off AoM type gameplay additons using the AoE engine, or, better yet, your text based examples.

I could go on...

 

[Vince]

So what about him (the AI enemy) being able to see my shadow and act accordingly? It again changes the rules as I have to watch out for every light and to know where my shadow will go before I start running around.

Exactly, I hear that in SC - people watch for the light placement and then will find areas where their shadow will be behind them (as to infront of) and only then sneak on on their enemy - otherwise their toast.

Or what about the ability to shoot out lighting to provide a tactical advantage - ala SOCOM or Spec Ops2 & Delta Force (to an extent).

 

[BenSkywalker]

Marco-

So what about him (the AI enemy) being able to see my shadow and act accordingly? It again changes the rules as I have to watch out for every light and to know where my shadow will go before I start running around.

The AI adds that gameplay element. The AI script isn't sitting next to you watching the screen.

Vince-

While your pondering that one, tell me how you'd duplicate the addition of real-time reflections (ie. a mirror) addition to gameplay in games that utilize CQB or Special Tactics style games?

Another line of sight issue. All the interactive actions that are based on them are AI based.

Or how you could provide a gameplay experience like Combat Mission - which is unilaterally agreed to be a revolution in wargaming - using 2D or your text-based games.

Not familiar with the game, although 3D does add gameplay due to the physics engine. Looking it up over at GR-

Think of the world around us - it's all 3D. True 3D LOS, 3D spotting, 3D terrain, and 3D trajectories are a lot more realistic than 2D approximations, so that is what CM delivers!

Line of sight, trajectories and terrain, using 3D physics to add gameplay.

Or how you'd pull off AoM type gameplay additons using the AoE engine, or, better yet, your text based examples.

While AoM sports a new graphics engine and three unique factions, on the whole it plays very much like its predecessors. Too much like its predecessors, if you were hoping for a truly different game experience.

http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/november02/ageofmythologypc/

I could go on...

With more examples of physics and AI changing gameplay, or with more examples of gameplay not changing much at all moving to 3D?

 

[mech]

What about you being able to see other people's shadows, and that adding to gameplay?

And obviously it's not just graphics - you could have that AI there WITHOUT the graphics, but it wouldn't be the same would it?

You're being extraordinarily obtuse here BSW.

 

[BenSkywalker]

you could have that AI there WITHOUT the graphics, but it wouldn't be the same would it?

It would be significantly less immersive to be sure.

As far as being obtuse, 2+2=4. No matter what anyone says, it does. Gameplay is not related to graphics. Immersiveness is, gameplay isn't.

 

[Vince]

Another line of sight issue. All the interactive actions that are based on them are AI based.

My actions - gameplay - are all based around what I percieve in the gameworld. I'd like to think that my conscousness isn't based around AI. Actually, by definition of AI, t's not.

WTF your attempting to show by this is overshadowed by your utter stupidity.

Not familiar with the game, although 3D does add gameplay due to the physics engine. Looking it up over at GR-

How can you attempt to tell me I'm wrong, having never played it? Physics? Not like your thinking, It's fucking turn-based tactical wargame.

Line of sight, trajectories and terrain, using 3D physics to add gameplay.

Your a fucking idiot Ben. It's a perfect example, here's how:

An American Armored column is approaching the town that I, as the leader of the remnents of a smashed German contingent of soldiers, am attempting to hold. Defeat is enevitable, untill I find from my reconcosence that the Americans are massing their Armor and attempting to cross the sole bridge left into town. I send several of my men into the top floor of a building that overlooks the bridge with their anti-tank weapons. Thanks to my gameplay descision based on information that I wouldn't have had in a 2D wargame of old, I won the battle.

Ever do any reading on the Battle of Stalingrad, or any Urban fighting? Try to reproduce any form of warfare in an Urban Centre with 2D - it's impossible.

Your a fucking moron. Play the game.

While AoM sports a new graphics engine and three unique factions, on the whole it plays very much like its predecessors. Too much like its predecessors, if you were hoping for a truly different game experience.

What is this shit? Play the game.

Your Deity can inflict damage upon your opponets by means such as tornadoes that pick up your buildings and units and send them flying off, or darkness that grows over your land and obscures movement, meteors will fly in from the heavens and utter destroy the opponents and deform the land, creating terrain based advantages to attacking/defending.

How can you even say this and back it up with some POS quote?

With more examples of physics and AI changing gameplay, or with more examples of gameplay not changing much at all moving to 3D?

Your an idiot. Have you ever: Been in the Military or played Airsoft or Paintball? I Airsoft and Paintball frequently, and have many friends who were in the service - you're going to tell me that my gameplay and descisions I make about a situation in tactical games aren't limited by graphics? Go do these things in the real world, where your visual and auditary imput is the only thing on your side, and then tell me that the reason your experiences and gameplay in a game-world aren't like the real-world isn't because of the visual stimulation.

In the mean time, I know I'm not the only person who thinks your a fuckin idiot.

Still ahven't answered the question about lighting and games like Socom and SpecOps2 - then again, you're still backlogged from page 2.

Another example: Gameplay in War of the Monsters compared with Rampage. Tell me that the graphics don't make a diffrence there.

 

[Vince]

It would be significantly less immersive to be sure. [Vince - referring to having AI without a graphical representation

Page 3:

So, let me get this strait. If I make a game where I have to hunt down the Dark matter that exists in a vacuum with no walls - that has great gameplay? I mean, Dark Matter obeys the physical laws of QT and Relativity - It has 'physics' and 'collison detection'. But, I can't see it. So, this is great gameplay? - Vince (Thats me.. heh)

So, this is what your advocating? No wireframe, no visuals at all are necessary according to you as long as the underlying physics, AI, and collision detection is there - as it is in my parallel.

Makes sence to me

Hey Ben, go outside and find me some Dark Matter. Comeback after you've got some.

 

[marconelly!]

The AI adds that gameplay element. The AI script isn't sitting next to you watching the screen.

If there wasn't for the visual representation of my shadow, I wouldn't know what to do. It has nothing to do with AI. In such case, AI would be a complete nuisance and ruin the gameplay. Only with the visual representation of the shadow, the situation changes, I know what's going on, and such gameplay experience makes sense.

 

[Vince]

Only with the visual representation of the shadow, the situation changes, I know what's going on, and such gameplay experience makes sense.

Excellently articulated.

Poor Ben's like the Bismark or British at Yorktown at this point.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Vince-

It's obvious you are starting to realise how hollow your arguments are, how much longer before you give up this absurdity?

Your Deity can inflict damage upon your opponets by means such as tornadoes that pick up your buildings and units and send them flying off, or darkness that grows over your land and obscures movement, meteors will fly in from the heavens and utter destroy the opponents and deform the land, creating terrain based advantages to attacking/defending.

Having tornados hit, 'fog of war', meteors crashing in to the land, deforming and changing the landscape. All of these were done in either SimCity 3K, which was 2D, and WarcraftII. I haven't been arguing that 3D doesn't offer new things yet you seem hellbent on showing that it doesn't. My end has been on graphics not adding anything to gameplay, you continue to bring up examples of things that have been being done for ten years or more.

An American Armored column is approaching the town that I, as the leader of the remnents of a smashed German contingent of soldiers, am attempting to hold. Defeat is enevitable, untill I find from my reconcosence that the Americans are massing their Armor and attempting to cross the sole bridge left into town. I send several of my men into the top floor of a building that overlooks the bridge with their anti-tank weapons. Thanks to my gameplay descision based on information that I wouldn't have had in a 2D wargame of old, I won the battle.

How does one shred of that have anything to do with graphics? Using high ground to set up a superior defensive position is something I was going in Nobunga's Ambition for the NES. Can you come up with any examples?

Have you ever: Been in the Military or played Airsoft or Paintball?

Comparing paintball to the militarty That one is rich

Go do these things in the real world, where your visual and auditary imput is the only thing on your side, and then tell me that the reason your experiences and gameplay in a game-world aren't like the real-world isn't because of the visual stimulation.

It is called immersion. This must be extremely hard for you, keeping track of two different words at the same time and all, particularly that part of them not having the same definition.

In the mean time, I know I'm not the only person who thinks your a fuckin idiot.

Like your assertion that developers would agree with you. So far all of them that have voiced their oppinion say that you are wrong.

Still ahven't answered the question about lighting and games like Socom and SpecOps2 - then again, you're still backlogged from page 2.

That was an actual point? An example of AI relates to graphics...? Why does shooting the light out change anything? Because the AI script tells it to. Does that honestly need explaining? I understand that some people see things on the magic moving picture box and think that is how everything involved works, you know, looking at the magic moving picture box. Those people don't realize that there is actual this program running in the background when it comes to video games, and that programs has different portions which are not tied together. The AI script and physics engine being a seperate issue then the graphics engine as one that seems to give these people a particular hard time.

Another example: Gameplay in War of the Monsters compared with Rampage. Tell me that the graphics don't make a diffrence there.

Again, moving from 2D to 3D is mainly a function of the physics engine. The graphics are there to further enhance the game on an immersive basis.

 

[Vince]

It's obvious you are starting to realise how hollow your arguments are, how much longer before you give up this absurdity?

HA!

Using high ground to set up a superior defensive position is something I was going in Nobunga's Ambition for the NES. Can you come up with any examples?

Even better the Genesis game? Hehe. Shogun's gameplay totaly eclipses that I hear, wonder why

But beyond that, I think you need to play Combat Mission as my words are falling upon deaf ears.

This is to say nothing of the strategic possibilities in and of themselves; the introduction of full 3D terrain opens up a whole realm of tactical wonder for the genre. Whether you're ordering a machinegunner to the top floor of a house or using a now-vulnerable spotter atop a particularly large hill for extended visibility, the immense value of the environment and its potential will never cease to strike you.

Comparing paintball to the militarty That one is rich

Comparing it to the experience of playing Paintball or Airsoft (which I knew is as close as you'd ever come to a physical activity, and thats stretching it) and the diffrences in gameplay mechanics as seen on the PC or Consoles. Whats richer is that your answer is an obvious no.

It is called immersion. This must be extremely hard for you, keeping track of two different words at the same time and all, particularly that part of them not having the same definition.

Wow your so dense.

Like your assertion that developers would agree with you. So far all of them that have voiced their oppinion say that you are wrong.

All of them = 1? He's a programmer.

That was an actual point? An example of AI relates to graphics...? Why does shooting the light out change anything? Because the AI script tells it to. Does that honestly need explaining? I understand that some people see things on the magic moving picture box and think that is how everything involved works, you know, looking at the magic moving picture box. Those people don't realize that there is actual this program running in the background when it comes to video games, and that programs has different portions which are not tied together. The AI script and physics engine being a seperate issue then the graphics engine as one that seems to give these people a particular hard time.

Actually, Marco already referred to this well, as did I.

Again, moving from 2D to 3D is mainly a function of the physics engine. The graphics are there to further enhance the game on an immersive basis.

Obviously, you haven't played the game. As the graphics are an integral part. Taking of pieces of buildings and attacking your opponents with them. Knocking over buildings to create obsticles, collapsing buildings over and onto players. Throwing players into buildings, which will collapse on them.

Play the game and you'll see. Just as you would if you played Combat Mission or

 

[BenSkywalker]

But beyond that, I think you need to play Combat Mission as my words are falling upon deaf ears.

This is to say nothing of the strategic possibilities in and of themselves; the introduction of full 3D terrain opens up a whole realm of tactical wonder for the genre. Whether you're ordering a machinegunner to the top floor of a house or using a now-vulnerable spotter atop a particularly large hill for extended visibility, the immense value of the environment and its potential will never cease to strike you.

This quote has absolutely nothing to do with the graphics engine, it has to do with the physics engine and AI. Do you understand the difference between them?

which I knew is as close as you'd ever come to a physical activity, and thats stretching it

Why do you assume that I don't do any physical activity? Never had anyone who met me face to face assume that. In terms of war games, I live and was raised in New Hampshire. I owned my first semi auto rifle at 14(Ruger 10/22, parents bougt it for me for Christmas). Paintball is actually rather popular up here, but not nearly as big as putting the toys away and actually hunting living things firing real bullets.

Comparing it to the experience of playing Paintball or Airsoft and the diffrences in gameplay mechanics as seen on the PC or Consoles. Whats richer is that your answer is an obvious no.

Paintball is a nice game for kids to play. Problem comparing it to military training is that the level of caution that real world situations demand that children's games don't. Back when I was a teenager I played a few times with a few of my friends who joined the military(one Army, one Marine, two National Guards) and the ones who spent the most time training for actual combat always faired the poorest in paintball(of course, the real danger of getting shot is not in the slightest way comparable to getting a slight stinging from a paintball). Out of the people I played with, the two that were always the best both came from familys who were huge into hunting, and neither of them were trained in military ops.

Before any paintball fans get their panties in a bunch, I supposed I should expand on why paintball is mainly a kids game and nothing like real life. First off is the range of the weapons. You go out over 150' and you aren't going to hit much of anything reliably, if you can hit it at all. The accuracy and range of the weapons are as limited, if not moreso, then BB guns. This leaves you with close quarter combat as the only reasonable useage for PB, something that is more akin to Police SWAT team activity then military ops. What is an easy shot at 200 yards with say, and AR-15 becomes an impossibility with a paintball gun, and hence many of the combat techniques you would utilize in a real combat situation don't work at all. Hunters tend to do fairly well here(at least, those that I know) because they spend quite a bit of time with muzzle loaders and even more closely related, bow and arrow. Having a paintball battle is nothing remotely like real combat situations, the updated laser tag is far more accurate(including disabling your weapon as soon as you are 'out', no 'accidental' cheating when you 'don't know' you've been hit). Paintball might be OK to try and recreate eighteenth century firearms battles, but that is about it. It is a good game for kids, although disheartening that so many states have taken their anti gun rhetoric to far that they banned juveniles from using them without parental supervision. Paintball is a great game for kids 10-16. After that, time to put down the toys and pick up the real thing

All of them = 1? He's a programmer.

A programmer, someone who understands exactly what part of the game code is doing what, doesn't agree with what you are saying. That doesn't surprise me in the least, yet you don't seem to grasp why that is.

Obviously, you haven't played the game. As the graphics are an integral part.

You keep saying the graphics are an integral part of gameplay for games that I have played where it isn't the case, why should I assume it is different in this case?

Taking of pieces of buildings and attacking your opponents with them. Knocking over buildings to create obsticles, collapsing buildings over and onto players. Throwing players into buildings, which will collapse on them.

That's all physics.