h a l f b a k e r yReplace "light" with "sausages" and this may work...
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
In this game, the terrain morphs constantly around you in a random fashion while buildings, obstructions, etc. appear and disappear in different random locations. The advantage gained by learning a static map would be negated when playing this map which would allow for a fairer first person shooter
experience. A possible way to implement this would be to allow the map to change in areas which are uninhabited for a period of time.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Not sure if preventing players from improving by learning
would make the game popular, but an attractive idea for its
own, aesthetic sake. [+] for that, and for reminding me of
"The Men Return," a classic Jack Vance story which confronts
its protagonist with a similarly
irrational landscape. |
|
| |
"Time Fighters". A game wherin time passes extremely quickly,
but only to the player; so as they run around, natural causes
make mountains form, rivers meander, and continents drift
visibly. |
|
| |
I like the idea of generating a 'new' map for all the players in a multi-player FPS - there is a distinct advantage in 'learning the map' and a more general playing style might be encouraged if everything was new, to everyone at the beginning of each game. |
|
| |
The tricky part comes in where you have to automatically generate a map while ensuring it has interesting and non-biased qualities. That being said, war isn't fair, so why should an FPS be? |
|
| |
Having a map that morphs in real-time during play would be a bit weird, I'm not sure how you'd be able to explain that away. |
|
| |
//how you'd be able to explain that away// The first two
annos are answers to that question. |
|
| |
//not sure how you'd be able to explain that away//
Why should you need to explain, z_t? It's a game. So the rules are whatever the game designer says they are. |
|
| |
I meant explain, in terms of situating it and the rules that model its behaviour within some kind of self-consistent narrative. |
|
| |
Having a narrative underpinning the rules, can help imbue otherwise dry logical statements with a sense of depth and context. Imagine a description of the rules of that oldest of computer games, Lander, without having a physical analogue/narrative to help describe the formulation of those rules. It would just be a bunch of maths. |
|
| |
"Welcome to Lander, ensure the value of V stays below a limit of X at the point where Y = 0 and V=MA. Where A = -9.8, Y starts at 100 and M = 100 before F =< 0. You start with 100F. Use applications of A++5 to avoid L-1 but remember each application decrements F by 5! You have 3 L. Extra L at 10000P!" |
|
| |
Such a game would have to be set within a world/environment in which this unusual behaviour was normal - and that's fine, it just poses some limitations on what narratives you can adopt. |
|
| |
//Such a game would have to be set within a world/environment in which this unusual behaviour was normal // |
|
| |
This could work out very well, in a game with a fantasy setting instead of sci-fi. You would expect the terrain of Fairyland to change, right? [+] |
|
| |