1  |   Order by index

Jan 5, 2001, 2:15pm

[View Quote] > Not the same thing at all. Games where you can "level a mountain just by
> shooting at it" have that opportinity predefined within the level. AW places
> no such restrictions on the user, where they can build a mountain, delete
> it, replace it with a park bench, stick a pole in the middle of the park
> bench, build a house around the park bench and pole, delete the pole, etc.
> etc. etc. ... ad infinitum.

Good god you're fucking dense, grimble. First of all, AW doesn't even ALLOW shooting, jumping, or most other game environment interactions, so for you to say that AW places no restrictions on the user just shows you're even MORE clueless about AW and 3D games than I thought.

> As for games were you can build ... you can only build those things that are
> supported within the game and interaction with these "objects" is also
> restricted to what is supported within the game. AW provides an environment
> where there are very few rules, and therefore handles any activity in a
> generic manner. In the games you mention, the restrictions placed on the
> player represent the "fixed" aspects. You can only do what the game supports
> which falls well short of a user's capabilities in AW.

AW public building worlds don't allow building with ANYTHING, as you imply, but impose restrictions on unconvered land, the ground zero building limit radius, whether or not the world has an object registry, eminent domain rights, etc, etc.

> It is hardly surprising that these games perform so much better than AW due
> to the assumptions and subsequent shortcuts that can be made within the
> processing BECAUSE of these restrictions. With the generic nature of AW's
> concept, everything must be handled in a "correct" manner ... and that takes
> processing power. Here's an example (of the point - don't take it too
> literally regarding AW). Imagine a ten-pin bowling alley. The rules are
> strict here - if the ball hits the pins at a certain point, from a certain
> direction, the fixed starting position of the pins can be relied upon and
> the after-effects of the strike can be rapidly rendered BECAUSE of this
> fact. Now imagine the same bowling alley in AW ... where the pins can be put
> anywhere. Each object (e.g. the ball, the pins, etc.) must be handled
> discretely and all the impacts individually calculated and rendered before
> moving on to the next point in time (e.g. frame) because there are no
> assumptions that can be made. There is a massive overhead in handling
> real-world, flexible environments where rules are few and far between
> compared to those where the bounds of interaction are so limited.

You forget that AW has hardly any physics, and most 3D games don't have that detailed enough physics, but I'm sure if a 3D bowling game had an "alley/lane editor", the pins could be knocked down from whatever angle the designer wanted.

Stop acting so cluelessly inept and LEARN about things before attempting to communicate about them, eh? God damn.

[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index