OK, I take your points, but I look on the two scenarios as different -
especially the "mission packs" point since this, to me, demonstrates my
point. "Mission packs" are basically additional pre-defined scenarios that
the game can run. They don't relate to going in to other worlds in AW, since
the same abilities are available in other worlds as in the original. You can
change them dynamically from from any location. I know exactly what I mean,
but I seem to be having a problem articulating it ... sorry. I still see
vast differences between the scope of AW and those of an environment
tailored to specific environments (such as games with massive level
definitions).
In terms of my views on AW ... the concepts behind AW are so much more
generic than anything else we have been discussing here. Sophistication
isn't the point, its the capabilities that the product allows over the
alternatives that set AW aside. The "rules" that AW applies to its worlds
are far less restrictive than those in games. The two sets of rules are
focussed on different subjects. As I was saying to Eep, in my view, the 3D
game environment that people compare AW to equates to a completed and
published world. With the lack of an ability to state/script specific
actions within an object definition for AW to the extent that is afforded to
games programmers who are writing a specific game, AW falls behind in
functionality and interaction whilst still having to follow the same
processing. BUT is not the key point I have been trying to make ... which
was that level editors create predefined environments (and new/updated
environments which manifest themselves as your "mission packs") for a game.
These environments are interacted with by the game itself ... but NOT while
the level is being built. That is the focus of the game concept ... there's
always a theme and a set of rules which relate to that theme, whereas AW is
an attempt at a kind of "global interaction". I basically see no comparison
because there is no theme defined for AW at all - no related
rules/assumption. What games don't have to worry about is someone coming
along and unexpectedly MOVING the walls of the U-Boat you're navigating. If
they move because someone has pressed a button, then there is specific code
to make the walls move in which is then executed within each of the
instances of the game to which it is relevant. AW allows much, much, much
lower-level activities than that. AW is aimed at mimicing the core
activities within a "virtual world", not the instigation of predefined
action.
The bowling example was meant as an example for the point, not AW. AW's
infrastructure doesn't allow such scenarios to be created efficiently ...
(even bots wouldn't be able to perform that kind of task and keep the effect
realistic to all client's). The Carmageddon II reference you made forced me
to think a bit more (thanks for that!!), but I still came up with the same
basic thoughts. The car is an object and it therefore a set a rules that
define how it interacts with things such as how it deforms when hit
(although I would imagine that the basic shape of the car isn't actually
effected in terms of the object itself rather than just how it looks) and
the rest is just a change of velocity that is then handled by the game. AW
doesn't deal with specifics - all activity is handled in a generic way but
you can't describe an object to the extent that a real-world needs. AW is
the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, poor cousin of the
"Thirteenth Floor" environment - modelling a world and not a scenario.
Thinking about it though ... is the AW performance really that bad? v3.0
flies on my machine (PIII 500, 128MB, Voodoo 3 3000). The restriction is
this pathetic dialup I have here. Bet there wouldn't be half the compaints
about it if they had a "full screen" mode rather than windowed.
Interesting discussion, but I think we're going to have to agree to
disagree. Shame no-one else wants to join in.
Grims.
[View Quote]rolu wrote:
>
> "grimble" <grimble2000 at btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:3a54eab2 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> Well, everything has to be predefined in some way, otherwise it can't
> happen. By the way, I wasn't speaking about a specific mountain, I was
> speaking about the terrain in general. It morphs when you shoot at it, or
> make big explosions. So if the terrain happens to be a mountain somewhere,
> you could keep shooting at it until it was a big hole. What you do
therefore
> has an impact on the terrain as a whole.
>
delete
etc.
>
> It doesn't? Well you seem to overlook a few things... first of all, if the
> object isn't available, it can't be built in AW. There is a set of
> predefined objects you are working with. You can insert an object, place
it
> somewhere and rotate it a bit (but only around it's up-down axis).
>
> This works the same in such a game: there are objects, which are at
specific
> places, etc etc. The objects that are available are limited by the people
> who made the game, just as the objects available in a world are limited by
> the owner. Do you really think everything in a game is hard-coded into the
> executable? That would be very silly. The kind of games that look like AW
> usually just are a reality-simulator. The levels, monsters, players, etc
are
> all completely modular.
>
> are
>
> In AW you can only build the things provided by the world's owner. If you
> own a world yourself, you can put in anything you want.
>
> In those games, you can only build the things provided by the creators of
> the game. It is possible to add things, if not by the players, then by the
> creators themselves. (read: add-on packs with extra levels, monsters,
> pickups, bonusses, etc)
>
> See the similarities?
>
>
> Of course it is. But this is the same in AW. You can only interact with
> stuff in predefined ways. You can come up with new, creative ways to use
> those interactions, for example a bot that reacts on an avatar gesture.
But
> you don't really create any new way to interact. Interaction in AW is
> limited to moving (moving to a certain area, or bumping into things),
> talking, using gestures and clicking on things. Nothing more. This is how
AW
> restricts what you can do. You can use some of these things by standard
> (clicking, bumping, coming near an object), and write little scripts for
> them. But scripts are nothing special, it's a fairly common way to make
> things happen. For example, the Creatures series of games is completely
> driven by a scripting language. Creatures happens to be 2D, but it would
be
> nothing different if it were 3D. Also, you can write bots, but that's
> similar to writing a plug in for a game. For example, someone has made an
> excellent plugin for Quake, Reaperbots. This plugin controls a bunch of AI
> players, and you can use it to brush up your deathmatch skills. (I can
> recommend it to anyone who likes quake multiplayer)
>
>
> Just the same for games. Most 3D games provide an environment for the
games
> to live in, the game itself is created by the levels and the objects. Even
> Wolfenstein 3D could run customizable levels!
>
> supports
>
> In AW you can only do what AW supports, which isn't really all that much.
>
> due
>
> You seem to be working with *very* old knowledge, or you grossly
> overestimate AW's capabilities.
>
> takes
>
> In a game, stuff must be handled in a correct manner too. Take Carmageddon
> II. There's a world, with various objects, and there are cars, which are
> objects too. Now crash your car into a streetlight at 300km/h. As for the
> game, this is just a matter of two objects hitting each other. Therefore,
it
> has to model the crash to see what happens. The streetlight might break
off
> and fly away, the car will deform, start to spin and maybe loose a few
> parts. Nothing is constant, compared with other crashes - the size and
shape
> of the car, the size and shape of the streetlight, the overall world
gravity
> (lunar gravity bonus, anyone), the thickness of the free space around you
> (you could be underwater), the speed and weight of the car, the speed and
> weight of the streetlight (could already be moving), etc etc etc.
>
> There are assumptions, of course. First of all, real world physics -
gravity
> for example. And the objects have been preprogrammed to tell the game that
> they can break or deform at certain places. But *what* happens, and when
and
> how, has to be done in the game itself.
>
> Now, for AW, the only physics it has to deal with are the movements of
your
> avatar. You'll fall down, unless you are flying, and you won't walk
through
> solid objects, unless you use shift. And if you are flying you'll keep on
> going for a while after you stopped pressing the keys.
>
certain
and
> put
before
>
> Nice example, but it doesn't apply here at all. The physics of the bowling
> alley aren't dealt with by the world server, nor by the AW client (unless
> you try to walk through it). AW has no native support for moving objects
> that influence other objects, and doesn't do any real world physics on
them
> either. What really happens is this: there's a bot (plug-in) that provides
> the game. The bot only knows about balls and pins. The bot notices that
you
> try to throw a ball, and then handles the moving and the impact. This is
> exactly the same as in a standalone bowling game, and everything happens
on
> the computer the bot runs on. The only thing your client gets through is
> where the pins and the ball move, which is the same as when someone's
avatar
> moves, or when someone moves an object while building.
>
> There simply *is* no real-world, flexible environment with few rules. AW
has
> very strict rules, even. You seem to think of AW as something much more
> sophisticated than it is.
>
> Rolu
>
>
|
