1  |   Order by index

Dec 29, 2000, 8:12am

Level editors don't create static environments (levels). Most current 3D game levels are anything BUT static. Objects can be broken, walls blown up, floors crumbling, etc, etc. You've obviously never played a 3D game. Hell, even Duke Nukem 3D from FOUR years ago had VERY dynamic levels. Multiplayer games handle level changes JUST fine. AW is simply lagging behind 3D games in general.

By making AW more gamelike, not only does it expand what could be possible with AW, it gives AW MUCH more marketable features. To me the business plan is obvious, but Rick and JP are obviously clueless about where to take AW--even Ron Britvich agrees per an interview by Rob Moyes (see http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/history.html for link).

I see a lot of potential in AW, which is why I don't plan on leaving it ANY time soon, but I will continue to speak out against its bad management, marketing focus ("e-commerce et al), and slow development until AWCI shapes or ships out and REAL management/development takes over...or until something better comes along (which isn't too far off).

[View Quote] > I think AW would need more of a commercially viable reason to rewrite their
> core 3D handling code. Mirrors would fall into a "nice to have" category in
> my view and "nice to have"s with a high development/implementation risk to
> the product (i.e. large cost/small return) don't make a lot of sense.
>
> Also, I think its time to stop comparing AW with all the 3D multiplayer
> games on the market. The only substantial dynamic data these games have to
> handle is the activities of the other "characters" in the environment.
> Handling a situation where the environment itself is changing (as required
> by AW to allow people to build, etc.) is a TOTALLY different matter. If AW
> only provided fixed worlds to run around in and interact with then that
> would be a fairer comparison. However, AW provides a more true-to-life
> environment which can be manipulated in real-time by many users
> simultaneously and it is this that sets it aside from the others. AW is not
> a level-editor for a game engine and in no way can it be compared to one
> because of (at least) one fundamental difference. Level-editors are
> effectively compiler/optimisers for fixed environments and that is not what
> AW is.
>
> Maybe the infrastructure on which AW is based is reaching the end of its
> shelf-life (personally, I think the changes from v2.2 to v3.0 fell well
> short of qualifying as a major product release), and v4 should be a
> strategic redirection, but right now, with the split between the
> server-based and client-based processing being so client heavy, some things
> are just not practical.
>
> If mirrors were to be added to AW, then they should be true mirrors and not
> a compromise of any form. If that means redeveloping large chunks of the
> rendering code or even switching rendering engines, then you've just got to
> accept that its not going to happen until AW can show in a business plan
> that the costs involved would be recouped, with interest, over a fixed
> period of time. Making such a change WITHOUT that business plan in place
> would constitute negligent management.
>
> AW are not going to prosper by blindly pandering to the requests of the
> likes of us, most of whom pay an annual pittance to AW to dabble in their
> environment. Even world owners (who pay) don't provide much of AW's
> revenue - their focus is, quite rightly, elsewhere. Business makes the world
> go around ... not hobbyists. Anyone who cannot accept the service AW provide
> should vote with their feet and be done with it.
>
[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index