1  |   Order by index

Jan 5, 2001, 5:52pm

[View Quote] Well, actually every world in AW is about the same. A world is just a
collection of objects. What objects, and how they are placed, is different
in each world, but if you look at it in an abstract way, it's all more of
the same. There are no special or extra abilities in any of the worlds.

> You can
> change them dynamically from from any location.

And with that, you change the definition of the world a little. You can't
change the levels in most 3D games while you are playing, *not* because it's
hard to do, or impossible, or would mess with something 'precompiled', but
because *it would ruin gameplay*. Imagine running through a maze, and
instead of solving it, you delete walls until you get to the exit. That's
why.

> 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).

AW *is* tailored to a specific goal, namely a 3D chat program. AW itself
does nothing special outside of that scope, all games and other things come
from 3d party bots, which are specifically suited for a particular game.

>
> 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.

It's quite possible to make a fully functional bowling alley in Quake. Duke
Nukem 3D has a billiard table somewhere in one of the first levels. By
modifying the data files of Carmageddon you can play as a pedestrian instead
of as a car. You can always use things in other ways than intended, nothing
special about that. It's even more fun.

> 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.

That's a false assumption. A level is just a data file telling the game how
that level is built. Nothing, except a decision of the creators of the game,
prevents you from adding things. Your whole point, and excuse for why AW is
behind 3D gaming, seems to be that you can add/delete/move objects when in a
world? If so, this is silly at best.

> 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.

Why do you think AW doesn't have a better scripting language? Not because it
is needed for generality. It's mainly a lack of time.

> 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.

If that's your key point, your whole argument falls, because it is false.
You assume that all game levels, once completed by the editor, are somehow
magically optimized and after that are completely static. But then what? If
the game allows you to, you can change the level while playing it. That's
just a matter of adding/deleting/changing things, it's just not desirable
for gameplay.

> 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.

AW has a theme - 3D chat. It has rules - there is a world, in which you are
represented by an avatar. This world is composed of a bunch of objects. You
can move your avatar through that world, and might occasionally bump
something. And AW assumes it has to take care of nothing, except for making
sure your avatar doesn't move through solid objects, except for when you
want to.

> 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.

Suddenly moving walls doesn't matter at all - see below.

> 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.

Yes. And now for AW?

> 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.

There you go wrong. AW doesn't handle any activity in a general way. It
doesn't simulate a real world. In the eyes of the program, the world is just
a static bunch of objects. Every now and then, the client gets messages like
this: "That walk01.rwx over there is now moved to this position" or "This
avatar moved to that position". And if you try to move, it goes like this:
"hm, the user tries to walk forwards. Let's see, is there some solid object
at the new position? If not, move, if so, don't move.". That's all AW does -
it doesn't care for any physics, except for some general things to make your
avatar move. It doesn't care about the physics of the other avatars in the
world. There is *no* object interaction, for example a ball hitting a stick.
If you are looking at a bowling game, there is nothing simulated or whatever
by AW. Everything about the game is handled by a bot. The AW client just
gets a bunch of messages about objects that get other locations. And when
there is no bowling bot, there can be no bowling, because AW doesn't support
such things.

> 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.

Considering what it does, it isn't really nice at all. It could probably be
much better.

>
> Interesting discussion, but I think we're going to have to agree to
> disagree. Shame no-one else wants to join in.

Agreeing to disagree is ok, but only as a last resort, or on things clearly
subjective (blue is a nice colour).

Rolu

>
> Grims.
>
>
>
>
[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index