PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Worlds Collide
May 17th 2000, 18:32 CEST by andy

Over at Blue's last night, I noticed a link to this demo of the helicopter game Apache Havoc: Enemy Engaged. Being a big fan of simulators and still harbouring the childhood dream of flying helicopters, this sounded like it was worth checking out. Oh wow...



Yes, wow. Not the demo - haven't even downloaded it yet - but have a look at this description of the game:

Apache Havoc is the first in a series of duel flight simulators that inter-connect, allowing the single player or multiple players an expanding choice of inter-connecting simulations.

The Enemy Engaged demo itself is compatible with the original Apache Havoc, so this is now a reality instead of just a forecast. How well the system works... I don't know, but it's the idea that appeals to me.

Think of how far this could be taken. Instead of just different chopper sims being able to join together, you could have plane and tank sims too. And how about "people simulators" - you get to play as a sniper, soldier or engineer and go out into the world where every tank, plane, chopper and gun installation is controlled by someone else using a different game!

Taking it a step further, what if some degree of 'standard' existed for multiplayer games? Imagine if Half-Life and team-play/fortress games could link up with vehicle simulators?

And imagine if this technology was used alongside fully destructible scenery. What if you and a bunch of friends wanted to jump on a Half-Life server for a spot of deathmatch, but before you could play you had to set up gun emplacements to defend the building?! (Sure, that wouldn't appeal to everyone, so you could still have 'pure' servers that don't inter-connect.)

The concept of war simulators is nothing new, and there are good arguments against them on the grounds that 'reality' wouldn't be much fun in a game world, but simply tying different simulators together is something that I've never seen any mention of. It's also something that seems a lot more technically plausible, albeit very difficult.

Of course, only certain types of game could link up. You couldn't really have the Quake marine stepping through a portal to fight in Bosnia, and some kid in an Apache helicopter might be a tad out of place hovering over The Ebon Fortress. But with the right sort of games, and a "life ain't fair" ethos meaning that certain players have to work together to survive, it could be pretty cool.

It would certainly be the closest we're likely to get to virtual reality without losing a lot of the fun. Or we could all just get a life, but that's sooo eighties...

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Worlds Collide

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-05-17 18:34:15
rhiggi@home.com
ME first


V<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#2 by "Happy Cow"
2000-05-17 18:34:33
happycow30@hotmail.com http://happycow.home.icq.com
first
#3 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-17 18:39:32
Darkseid@captured.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
uhm Andy .. go back and re-read some of the stuff on games we've mentioned in the first few threads of the new pc.

anyone spot the 'linking worlds' concept that several people posted about ?


Anyone heard of Halo ? (flight sim, tanks sim, hand combat, squad combat)

or Tribes 2 ? (squad combat, air combat, vehicle combat)

or perhaps the rumours about the MMPOG Star Wars game.


tum te tum


Ds
#4 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-05-17 18:40:51
rhiggi@home.com
Very interesting idea, but I had to be first and so couldn't read it before my last post.  That would be sooooo cool.  Even combining tank/aircraft would be awesome.  I don't mean awesome, I mean AWESOME!  I haven't played any flight sims in a long time, but I would definately by that.  Plus, there would be different products so more $.  I'd be willing to pay for the TANK, and the F16, and the HELICOPTER seperately if it were worth it.

Teamfortress 2 combined with a RTS C&C like game.  Kewlness.

V

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#5 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-05-17 18:42:24
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#2</b> "Happy Cow" wrote...
<QUOTE>first </QUOTE>

HAHAHAHAH, good try grasshopper :) but you are not ready to yourney on your own :p

V<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#6 by "asspennies"
2000-05-17 18:53:26
asspennies@coredump.org http://www.coredump.org
Hmm, I wonder if you could make your cities in SimCity, then play Counter-Strike in those cities, all the while having someone else watch over your situation while playing Black & White.

Sure, it's never going to happen, but it would make things interesting...
#7 by "Rantage"
2000-05-17 19:05:08
rantage@hotmail.com http://www.steelmaelstrom.org
<b>#6</b> "asspennies" wrote...
<QUOTE>Hmm, I wonder if you could make your cities in SimCity, then play Counter-Strike in those cities, all the while having someone else watch over your situation while playing Black & White.

Sure, it's never going to happen, but it would make things interesting... </QUOTE>

Why couldn't it happen?  Maxis released <I>Streets of SimCity</I>, in which you could apparently drive a car through a SimCity you've created.  And that title came out a couple of years ago.

I think we'll see this sort of thing...maybe not for a few years, but it will happen.  I wouldn't even be suprised if Maxis has a hand in it.

Personally, I love the idea of urban fighting through my Sim's neighborhood. <B>"Oh my God, the terrorists have taken Bella Goth hostage!"</B> :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#8 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-05-17 19:09:47
sgt_hulka@yahoo.com http://www.hulka.com
What is it really, what's going on here.
You've got the system for total control.
Now is there anybody out there, now watch us suffer, yeah, cause we can't go.

What is it really, that is in your head.
What little life that you had just died.
I'm gonna be there when it's taken over.
Now this is what it's like when worLDS COLLIDE!!!!!!!!!!!

ARE YOU READY TO GO, CAUSE I'M READY TO GO
WHAT CHU GONNA DO, BABY BABY!???

ARE YOU COMING WITH ME, CAUSE I'M COMING WITH YOU, THAT'S THE END OF ALL TIME.....

Sorry, the topic put that damn song in my head!  I can't get it out.  I've tried the PURGE SONG, which is "The Wheels on the Bus go Round and Round", which is supposed to purse repeating songs, but it's not working.  Thanks Crappers!!!!!!!!
#9 by "ilian"
2000-05-17 19:12:40
ilian@rewolfsoftware.com http://www.rewolfsoftware.com
<b>#7</b> "Rantage" wrote...
<QUOTE>I wouldn't even be suprised if Maxis has a hand in it. </QUOTE>

The funny thing is, a couple of years ago Maxis actually DID have an idea like this. I got paid $50 to be part of a group who they ran their ideas past. They wanted to create a first person action game that you terraformed worlds to meet your tacticul needs then you could drive tanks, fly  planes, or go on foot through these worlds and fight your opponent. Obviously this project never came to fruition, but the funny thing was, they wanted to rename themselves for action games, since people didnt look at Maxis for action games. The name they wanted to use for their company for action games was "Gaseous Cloud". Everyone in the group was just on the floor laughing after that.. ugh...

-ilian
#10 by "Karl Palutke"
2000-05-17 19:17:43
palutkek@asme.org
<quote>Oh my God, the terrorists have taken Bella Goth hostage!</quote>

Why would they need to take her hostage?  All you need to do is cook dinner, turn on the television, and juggle, and Bella will join you of her own free will.
#11 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-05-17 19:21:39
tc10@nospam.st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
Battlezone had the potential to do this. When Team Evolve still existed, and we were working on The Red Odyssey, we considered adding a co-op mode to the game, but the dev schedule was far too short to do so, unfortunately.
If a co-op mode had been implemented, it would haved been very close to what you suggest - an AI army pitted against 20-30 human players, each controlling their own little soldier, and jumping in and out of tanks, gun towers, Recyclers. It would have been a blast, but it would have taken far too long to build, unfortunately.
I think probably Battlezone in itself is something like a single-player version of the game you're suggesting anyway.
Regardless, I agree - this sort of game would rock the gaming world to its foundations, and almost certainly be a roaring success. One day, maybe... ;)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#12 by "hunchback"
2000-05-17 19:22:08
danerat@mindspring.com http://www2.ucsc.edu/~erat/
It's great to see the 'Crap back!

I'm of the opinion that we won't see anything like this anytime soon.
I can see how a company that makes a helicopter sim
can convert it into a tank or plane sim without too much
trouble, since they'd be able to use the same
underlying engine.  For anything else, though, it would
simply take too long to develop two complete games
that could interlock.  By the time the second one came
out, everyone would have stopped playing the first.  The
other scenario would be for two companies to simultaneously develop
games that link together, but considering
that most companies seem to have a great deal of
difficulty just getting their _own_ game to work, this
doesn't seem very likely either.  Now maybe if Microsoft
purchased a bunch of small gaming companies, created a
closed protocol, and instructed all the companies to
work on something like this... :)
#13 by "hunchback"
2000-05-17 19:26:12
danerat@mindspring.com http://www2.ucsc.edu/~erat/
Just out of curiousity, how do other people (who don't use CrapSpy) post here?

I think the old site had a fixed width text entry box for the comments, so newlines weren't an issue.  But here, it looks like unless I type everything on one line, my comments are going to look funny.
#14 by "Roswaldo Allegre"
2000-05-17 19:43:20
snap@nwlink.com
Has anyone actually checked out Comanche Vs. Hokum yet? (Hint: the game we're originally supposed to be talking about.)

I tried downloading it last night, but was only getting maybe 8kbs and it would have taken a couple if not a few hours... so I hadda play CS instead. It's 80 megs to download.

I think the idea has been thrown around before.
Janes WAS working on combat.net or something like that, where one was supposedly able to play a number of their games in one world.

It'll be nice when it becomes a reality. I have to wonder if the engine used for the ground battles would be that much different than the air battle engine... the scale is just so different.
#15 by "JeffD"
2000-05-17 19:48:51
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Yawn.

No offense Andy, but the Virtual Battlefield isn't anything new.  Pick up a copy of Falcon 3.0, the manual proposes a Virtual Battlefield where Falcons, tanks, soldiers, etc would all work together.  In fact, the manual implies that Spectrum Holobyte was working on a Tank game to work with Falcon.  Nothing ever came of it.

Somewhere on the 'net Brian Hook (It may have been his Ask Hook column, or maybe even on PC) commented on the Virtual Battlefield.  

Read up on EvilAvatar's exploits in an online WWII bomber sim.  Basically, while a neat idea, nothing ever comes of it because for the most part people won't work together like a proper army should.  

On a small scale, this sort of thing might work.  However, on a larger scale, the propensity of idiots in the world would simply ruin it.  A virtual battlefield situation requires alot of teamwork, which is in short supply in the online gaming community.
#16 by "Rantage"
2000-05-17 19:54:46
rantage@hotmail.com http://www.steelmaelstrom.org
<b>#10</b> "Karl Palutke" wrote...
<QUOTE>
Why would they need to take her hostage? All you need to do is cook dinner, turn on the television, and juggle, and Bella will join you of her own free will. </QUOTE>

Pretty clever, those guys at Maxis...coming up with an algorithm for Helsinki Syndrome. :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#17 by "deadlock"
2000-05-17 20:04:16
deadlock@eircom.net
I know it's been posted here before, but there's a similar idea on the cards for Elite-style space games, such as <a href = "http://www.parsec.org">Parsec</a> and Terminus (?? I think that's it). In a way I'd almost prefer this, because the scope to have on-line, real-time virtual 'space-communities' (as opposed to straight out armies) is huge.

Just think: millions of servers, each one hosting its' own individual system; each system is governed by one or more persons - people can 'pay' to own land on the planets for mining purposes, or they could 'rent' a space in a land-/space-side port and make money from piracy, bounty-hunting, asteroid-mining, contract killings, protection rackets or even fighting in the system's army.

Each system would have a map of the 'systems' (or servers) in its' vicinity - select a destination and then 'hyperspace' to the next system.

Unfortunately, Parsec will be a purely combat driven game, but if David Braben ever gets his finger out of his arse (or wherever), maybe we could finally have Elite/Frontier taken to what I think is it's natural conclusion.

...drifts off into reverie...

deadlock
#18 by "Andy"
2000-05-17 20:11:02
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#15</b>, JeffD:
<QUOTE>
Somewhere on the 'net Brian Hook (It may have been his Ask Hook column, or maybe even on PC) commented on the Virtual Battlefield.
</QUOTE>
And a <a href="http://www.voodooextreme.com/ask/editorial2.htm#mar11">very interesting article</a> it was too, but you should remember that it's easy to point out why something <i>wouldn't</i> work... it's much more helpful to work out how it could.
#19 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-05-17 20:11:17
piramida@usa.net http://www.agsm.net
Oh yes, the game of the games; this is what I hope to see before I grow too old to play games...

I think you can easily go beyond "tank/plane/foot/turret" limitations - imagine a game (don't think about technical side, just imagine it's possible) - where there are people playing army guys ala Quake and other first person action games, be it tanks or helicopters; at the same time in the same gaming Universe there are people building cities, doing weapon research, conquering new planets; and the army guys doing the dirty work. If you like strategy - start from the strategical advisor and move up to the fleet admiral. Have a good reactions? Shoot your way up to the squad leader. Very creative? Go think of new weapons in research dep. You can continue simulating forever... Be a spacecraft pilot, tank driver, logistics manager, politician, prostitute - whatever suits you best.

The only limitation to that kind of megagame would be the fact that companies would not really want to cooperate and create a unified interface for their games, and keep the games running in a shared Universe. One company has to do that game, and I don't see a company that could lift a project of this magnitude alone... But of course this would be an extremely cool game, if it would ever be created (and I am afraid to imagine how absolutely addictive it would be).<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#20 by "None-1a"
2000-05-17 20:15:02
none1a@home.com
ilian Maxis did do some games along this line, SimCopter and Streets of Sim City are the only two, only to find that both games really sucked, so I'd guess the next game in line would have been a FPS or RTS game but was droped to to poor sales.

Also I've heard this while line before, Jane's stated they where going to make all of there new game compatible with a massive online world where every one could connect and fight in an online war nomater what game they bought. Beta testing was stated to start last summer with there US Air Force sim as a start (the game didn't get released soon enough for that) since then I've not heard a damn thing about it, the project was called world war any one else hear anything new about this?
#21 by "Apache"
2000-05-17 20:21:54
apache@warzone.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
havok!
#22 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-05-17 20:26:41
piramida@usa.net http://www.agsm.net
<b>#18</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>And a very interesting article it was too, but you should remember that it's easy to point out why something wouldn't work... it's much more helpful to work out how it could. </QUOTE>

Right, besides I haven't seen any absolute showstoppers in his post; something that would say "hey, this is 100% impossible because of that and that" - he only raises some questions all of which can be answered, maybe not right away, but the design stage of any game is a lengthy process, and no one said this kind of game should be easy...

Sleeping problem? Not a problem at all; if 900 people of your 1,000 army are sleeping the rest 100 is fighting; if the other side has more - easier for them...

If the war is lost - it's not reset again, but the area (or whatever the war was about) is taken by the other side. Losing republic/clan/country/whatever has to move out or is completely destroyed / assimilated by the winner. It starts making much more sense if you add some politician players who would be setting wars up (and they would have no difficulty finding a reason :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#23 by "PainKilleR-[CE]"
2000-05-17 20:27:43
painkiller@planetfortress.com http://www.planetfortress.com/tftech/
Jane's Combat sims were supposed to go in pretty much the same direction. The info is probably still on their site, though I'm not sure if they ever managed to actually release a couple of games to do this. There were also a couple of other games that did similar things, though I can't recall which, possibly some Novalogic games or some other publisher...
#24 by "None-1a"
2000-05-17 20:42:45
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
Yeah PainKilleR, there's a little update on there site in the USAF section on World War. And from what it sounds like in the little infomation on the site the orignal idea was scaped and World War will now refere to a community site. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#25 by "Karl Palutke"
2000-05-17 21:23:08
palutkek@asme.org
<quote>. . .before I grow too old to play games... </quote>

You mean dead?
#26 by "El Asso Wipo!"
2000-05-17 21:45:41
dickcheese@hotmail.com http://www.bluesnews.com
or just brain dead ?
#27 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-17 22:19:08
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#4</b> "Vengeance[CoD]" wrote...
<QUOTE>Very interesting idea, but I had to be first and so couldn't read it before my last post. That would be sooooo cool. Even combining tank/aircraft would be awesome. I don't mean awesome, I mean AWESOME! I haven't played any flight sims in a long time, but I would definately by that. Plus, there would be different products so more $. I'd be willing to pay for the TANK, and the F16, and the HELICOPTER seperately if it were worth it. </QUOTE>

This sounds like what Microprose's Electronic Battlefield series was SUPPOSED to be. I say 'supposed' because they dropped the concept, along with a lot (two words) of other things, like customer support. They were going to try and combine things like Falcon, Gunship, and M1 Tank Platoon into a single multiplayer concept. They never implemented it, and now probably never will.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see it happen. I'm just not holding my breath. One of MPS' problems was the current state of online gaming. They had lag problems, connectivity problems, server issues. Maybe in another year or so, things would be better for it.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#28 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-05-17 22:25:08
piramida@usa.net http://www.agsm.net
<b>#26</b> "El Asso Wipo!" wrote...
<QUOTE>or just brain dead ? </QUOTE>

either one :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#29 by "loonyboi"
2000-05-17 22:26:57
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com
Actually, the plan with Falcon 4.0 was to do this.

In Falcon 4.0, when you start a game, the server creates a full war - not just a bunch of clouds. How you do in your mission might turn the tides of the war, or do nothing at all - you're just one pilot.

Anyway, the original plan was to extend this for MicroProse's next game, a planned tank sim. Since the war architechture was already in place, apparently it would have been a piece of cake to make it all work seamlessly.

Apparently this was one of the reasons the game took so damn long to make (almost 10 years).

Of course, Microprose no longer exists, at least not as a separate entity, and I don't think Hasbro is planning on keeping this project alive.

A shame, really.

-jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#30 by "loonyboi"
2000-05-17 22:29:10
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com
Oh yeah, the other cool thing about Falcon 4.0's war system? Because it all unfolds in real-time, if you leave it at the map screen and walk away, the war keeps going...just for the heck of it, I let it run one night while I was sleeping. It's fun to see the results. :)

-jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#31 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-05-17 22:43:39
tc10@nospam.st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
An intriguing take on this has just occurred to me: many of you, I assume, will have been, or are still, in to various role-playing and table-top games. Now, why should this kind of interaction between computer games not be already entirely feasible?
One thing that I and a few friends used to do with those games (in particular, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and the original WH40K) was to combine them - we would conduct battles on the tabletop in the normal way, but those battles and their aftermath would be roleplayed using the WFRP rulebook (admittedly, an altered, slightly bastardised version of it, to allow for the different setting), to try to simulate, for example, diplomacy and politics to avert a battle, or to play out events after a squad had fought its way in to a fortress on the tabletop. That's not such a great description of it, thinking about it, but, in the context, you should all be able to pick up what I mean ;)
So why not do this with existing PC games? All it would take would be a little teamwork between the interested parties, which would mean that actual teamwork would be more likely in the FPS part of the game, and an agreed set of rule alterations.
For instance - imagine that two people play something akin to Risk (I can't think of any existing PC games that are like it, but whatever); they are the supreme commanders. Then, one tier below, you have (for example) Red Alert for large-scale battles; you might then be trying to get an APC to a particular building, where you then go down another level, and play a game of Q3A team DM in a map of the building - and all the while, the two Risk players are doing the whole diplomacy thing and making decisions about battles going on in the other games, getting status reports from their captains in the field, and so forth. The only thing needed to tie it all together would be ICQ or a phone - the commander may suddenly decide on the basis of a message from his captain in the Slipgate Complex that Shub-Niggurath's Pit isn't that important, and order all his men out of that area (that server) in to the Slipgate Complex, to back up his men there, or come to a territorial agreement with the other commander and order an end to the battle in a certain area.
With a little judicious modification to (for example) Battlezone, TF2 (once it's out) and some simple strategic-level app to tie it all together, it could be a fascinating step forward in gaming.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#32 by "JeffD"
2000-05-17 22:53:31
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Constructive ideas?

Technically, I think it's possible.  Difficult to implement, but not impossible - a talented team of programmers could handle it.  It'd just be another massively-multiplayer game, sort of a hybrid strategy / sim game.

The biggest problems I see are as follows:

1)  Teamwork.  A single dork with some skill in an F16 can really ruin your day.  If six guys get together to launch a bombing run on an enemy nuke facility and some dork in an F16 shoots them down just for kicks, well, that's not very cool or fun.  

2)  Coordination.  In a real war, coordination and strategy is just as important as individual ability.  It's great if we've got some crack F16 pilots and an unstoppable tank platoon, but we need someone to handle the overall strategy and planning.

3)  Timing:  Who's to say that someone will *want* to do what needs to be done.  As the general (or whatever) I might decide that it's necessary that we bomb a convoy headed into Beirut or something.  What if no one wants that boring mission that promises little to no action?

my suggestion:  a truly massively-multiplayer online battlefield wouldn't be very cool.  HOWEVER:

Creating a more limited version of this concept, like a Neverwinter Nights to the Virtual Battlefield's Everquest, might work out.  Get six or seven guys together and play a war against the computer.  One guy is fighter command, one guy is maybe bomber command, one is in charge of the tanks, one handles the navy....  Five friends doing this could concievably work.  You can choose to let AI pilot your vehicles / planes, or you can do it yourself.

Like I said, the MMOL war system would probably not work, but in a more limited scale it could potentially be alot of fun.
#33 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-17 23:06:24
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
Cool ideas abound.

You're already seeing this to some small degree in games like Evercrack.  In a VERY simplistic sense, you can view it as a "Fighter simulator" and a "Theif simulator" and a "Sorceror simulator" etc.

No, I'm not on crack (I don't play Everquest)...bear with me.

The point is; for this type of thing to work properly (or BEST), you need a uniform engine with a unform network interface and a central server...something that the MMRPGs already have.  It would be very difficult on both the technological and gameplay fronts to combine different game types from different companies and produce anything resembling an actual "game".

This opens the door for TONS of BIG problems, from a gaming sense, but I don't feel like being the doom-sayer today.

Suffice it to say that there are some VERY cool possibilities. In a few years, you'll see much more of this...with the primary problem being development time.

IMO, the "next big thing" will be the company that develops the tools to greatly reduce development time.  Whether it's from out-sourcing different aspects of the job or from computer generated levels, creatures and artwork.  Hmmm....time to open up the "idea folder"...

-Valeyard
#34 by "G-Man"
2000-05-17 23:35:59
jonmars@shiftlock.org http://www.shiftlock.org
<b>#33</b> "Valeyard" wrote...
<QUOTE>IMO, the "next big thing" will be the company that develops the tools to greatly reduce development time. Whether it's from out-sourcing different aspects of the job or from computer generated levels, creatures and artwork.</QUOTE>
The completely in-game non-compiling level editor is what you mean. And duh.

Andy everyone loves the idea, what took you so long to join the bandwagon? But the real issue with the implementation you've outlined isn't all this other teamplay/online jerks/technology stuff (After all once everyone unifies behind a few interoperable uber engines due to market forces, this whole this is peanuts to implement). It is TIME.

As you go from each level of abstraction to a more defined level, you expand time a LOT. Example: general's in the risk-type worldview might be making moves every few minutes, but the actual logistics and combat taking place during those moves would take a real-life squad a few hours to settle. So do we cut short the squad members' fun, or make the generals wait and watch the scoreboard for 20 minutes after each move. What happens while the generals are thinking or afk?

What is definitely possible (but not for a good 5-10 years) is a single world 3D war simulation. E.g the "generals" would be mousing around the world geometry just like everyone else except they have access to the overhead map, command menu structure, etc. Granted they may be mousing around in an office somewhere watching the whole thing via written reports, cameras, satellite photos, and other forms of intelligence, but they would still be operating on the same time-frame as everyone else.

 - [g.man]<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-05-17 23:49:10
piramida@usa.net http://www.agsm.net
<b>#32</b> "JeffD" wrote...
<QUOTE>
1) Teamwork. A single dork with some skill in an F16 can really ruin your day. If six guys get together to launch a bombing run on an enemy nuke facility and some dork in an F16 shoots them down just for kicks, well, that's not very cool or fun. </quote>

Well the dork gets shot when he returns to base. He won't be able to go high up the ranks with such attitude; and he would have to start again. Besides, he won't have enough power to do any serious damage - he would have to painfully serve on something like food carrier first for some time to get F16 in his possesion.

<quote>2) Coordination. In a real war, coordination and strategy is just as important as individual ability. It's great if we've got some crack F16 pilots and an unstoppable tank platoon, but we need someone to handle the overall strategy and planning.</quote>

Exactly, what about leaders? Someone who served long enough should be the squad leader, commanding his 5-6 men. And on the top there would be strategic generals, commanding squad leaders where to hit next and what to hold.

<quote>3) Timing: Who's to say that someone will *want* to do what needs to be done. As the general (or whatever) I might decide that it's necessary that we bomb a convoy headed into Beirut or something. What if no one wants that boring mission that promises little to no action? </quote>

Orders. You would not want to lose your rank / get killed because you are not obeying orders.

Surely, you can say that everyone would want to be a general and command - but it is possible to balance things; people shouldn't be able to jump directly into high-ranked staff, they would have to work as a strategical advisor on non-important missions first, getting respect and going higher in rank with more and more successfull missions...

There are a lot of things to think about, but it is possible (the main difficulty would be the scale of the project which would require very carefull design and alot of developer time)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#36 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-18 00:21:26
Darkseid@captured.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
Ok first up - Helsinki syndrome for those who dont know know. Simply put the hostage begins to feel sympathy or attraction for those holding them and will act in their best interest .. like yelling 'theres the SAS' instead of lying down.


Second up, how many peopl here remember DiD's Wargasm ?  

Drive a tank, fly a helicopter or be a footsoldier/ drive an apc.  Mix them all together in a virtual battlefield where people could join in on a large scale in differing roles .....

It didnt sell well due to it requiring a _godzilla_ scale pc. Interestingly DiD wrote target acquisition, missle training and WAR simulators for the military, so you can guess just how 'true' this game was.


Ds
#37 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-18 00:25:42
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
<b>#34</b> "G-Man" wrote...
<QUOTE>The completely in-game non-compiling level editor is what you mean. And duh. </QUOTE>

Well excuse me for stating the obvious. :)  Actually, that's not what I was referring to, but it <b>is</b> one of the probably solutions. (FAKK2 is on the right track)

What I suspect is that you'll see more "specialty" houses opening up.  Places that specialize in textures/models/sprites will be contracting to do the game's art.  Engine licensing will become even MORE popular (if that's possible).

It won't completely diverisify, you'll still see the small developer that does it all...and they may produce the best games.  We'll just have to wait and see.

Re-reading this...it's just as much "common sense" as my first post.  Oh well.

-Valeyard<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#38 by "Apache"
2000-05-18 00:26:14
apache@warzone.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
I just games with the name "Apache" in them.. ;)
#39 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-18 00:42:48
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#29</b> "loonyboi" wrote...
<QUOTE>I don't think Hasbro is planning on keeping this project alive. </QUOTE>

Hasbro does not appear to be doing anything at the moment that does not have to do with Pokemon. Witness the desecration of Gunship! I can only hope that B17II was farther along than Gunship! was when Hasbro took it over, or it will stink like fresh shit as well.

<b>#30</b> "loonyboi" wrote...
<QUOTE>Oh yeah, the other cool thing about Falcon 4.0's war system? Because it all unfolds in real-time, if you leave it at the map screen and walk away, the war keeps going...just for the heck of it, I let it run one night while I was sleeping. It's fun to see the results. :)

-jason</QUOTE>

Yup, and the other thing that they did with that is made it harder for your side to win if you do not take any flights, or stink up the ones that you do take. Your side's abilities and successes are tied to your performance, so that the better you do, the better they. If you start a campaign, and the just let it run its course, I think the win/loss rate is 75-80% in their favor.

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#40 by "Happy Cow"
2000-05-18 00:51:41
happycow30@hotmail.com http://happycow.home.icq.com
You know, the really big problem with all of this is, playing online with a dial up connection sucks. And as for team play, people do not work and play well with others. You can't fix people no matter how good the engine.

By the way, I WAS SO FIRST. I blame the erroneous posting to Anti bovine sentiment. I assure you the aspca PETA, and the dairy council will be notified.

Happy cow (The really first one)
#41 by "ilian"
2000-05-18 01:37:14
ilian@rewolfsoftware.com http://www.rewolfsoftware.com
<b>#37</b> "Valeyard" wrote...
<QUOTE>What I suspect is that you'll see more "specialty" houses opening up. Places that specialize in textures/models/sprites will be contracting to do the game's art. </QUOTE>

Actually, this is what the founders of the company i work for want to do. They want to do nothing but make textures/sprites/skies/other 2d art, and be contracted out by other gaming companies. On one of our buisness trips to valve software, we sat down with gabe newell and harry teasley and this idea was discussed. Gabe didn't think that the industry was headed in this direction and basically kinda waved his hand at the idea. The general idea was that they didnt think that it was feasible, regardless of the quality of the work. I do not, personally, have a good feel for the "state of the industry",
so its hard for me to comment on this, but i do not understand why the idea is that outrageous. Perhaps it is because that artwork, unlike a game engine, is more directly tied to the creative design of the project?

-ilian
#42 by "ilian"
2000-05-18 01:38:44
ilian@rewolfsoftware.com http://www.rewolfsoftware.com
<b>#36</b> "Darkseid-[D!]" wrote...
<QUOTE>Second up, how many peopl here remember DiD's Wargasm ?
[snip] It didnt sell well due to it requiring a _godzilla_ scale pc. </QUOTE>

Also, becuase Wargasm was a terrible, terrible game.
Did you ever actually play it? ugh, this was a stinker..

-ilian
#43 by "Flamethrower"
2000-05-18 04:11:02
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
Not true, it was wonderful. If you worked at it. It's RTS interface was too primative, but it's Glide engine was warm and beautiful. Wargasm on TNT is like Killcreek, it sucks the sweat off a dead god's balls.

But ever play that rainy, misty, muddy, chopper dogfight DM level on a Lan? Intense stuff. If you have not, you missed out.
#44 by "loonyboi"
2000-05-18 04:16:18
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com
<b>#43</b> "Flamethrower" wrote...
<QUOTE>Wargasm on TNT is like Killcreek, it sucks the sweat off a dead god's balls.  </QUOTE>

Colorful, isn't he folks? :)

-jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#45 by "scud"
2000-05-18 05:58:14
scud@counter-strike.net http://csnation.counter-strike.net
'bout as colorful as the insides of
#46 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-18 10:11:42
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
Hi,

This type of project is technical possible. It has been done several times, mainly by military institutions (or joint academic-military institutions). It started in 1983 (Note this is pre-gibsonian notion of cyberspace) and moved through various standards (Major military standards were SIMNET, then DIS, and now is HLA). Most of these simulations have had different notions of particpants. You had standard computer interface, you could have commander interfaces, other interfaces. You could even have constructive and live entities. Live entities were those that actually exist in real life, (So you could drive around in a tank IRL and it would appear in simulation and the entities in simulation would appear in real tanks scanners etc).

Technically possible ? Yes, they have had as many as 1000 participants simultaneous in the same region (or zone or cell depending on terminology) and were aiming for about 10,000 by the end of this year.

HLA also allows a lot more flexability. It would allow arbitary military simulations to join and include their own custom components and is supposed to offer a form of interoperability.

There are currently 2 limitations to this scheme. HLA doesn't yet allow adding of different entity types (say a new tank) while the simulation ius running, and the reliance on bad stanadards for media interoperability (ie maps/textures/models).

As for would it work as a game ? I think not, at least not without modifications. A type of MMORPG may work as long as there is certain restraints on the participants.


<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#47 by "Chango"
2000-05-18 14:47:21
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
Are we dealing with bricks here?  Hell no!  We're daling with the programmable machinery known as PC's.  Of course it's technically possible.  ANYTHING is technically possible in this sense.  The only constraint is the power of the average home-user PC.  Right now it's unfathomable, but it's on the horizon, and that fact alone means we aren't too far away from it.  I certainly couldn't have forseen masive team-oriented battles with complete strangers over telephone lines back in the days I was playing Head Over Heels on the C64.

Re: the argument about 11 year old kids spoiling everyone's fun - it's unavoidable, but I certainly wouldn't call it a problem - certainly not something that would stand in the way of its development.  We have the very same problem right now on any multiplayer game - cheating, camping, killing teammates, etc etc.  It's unavoidable when you introduce the human contingent.  just get over it.  Like in Q2CTF, TFC, WF, or indeed counterstrike, you're going to get the occasional dick, but there are a vastly larger proportion of players actually serious about getting a good gaming experience then not.

About the dial-up connection gripe:- soon won't even be a factor - DSL is becoming more widespread, so much so that in the next 3 years it will more than likely be the standard net connection.  Even if it wasn't, there's Gabe Newell's fabled PowerPlay(tm), and of course the murmurings about a so-called "Internet2" which will utilise faster, more reliable technology.  Face it, one way or another, the future's bright and sparkly, and the days of the 56k V90 standard will be well and truly a thing of the past.

I know it's waaaay too earliy to even suggest at, but I personally believe that this is what Carmack is working on.  I'm not saying this to be controversial, or even to promote a response from any of you.  It just seems to me to be the inevitable 'next big thing' in gaming, and Carmack has the nack of detecting this shit before anyone else.  Plus, if anyone can pull it off and pull it off well, it's Carmack.

I say stop worrying about a pocketful of kids ruining it, stop worrying about bad net connections, stop worrying about the amount of programming needed, and stop worrying about.... er.... other stuff too!


-Chango
#48 by "Chango"
2000-05-18 14:47:39
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
Are we dealing with bricks here?  Hell no!  We're daling with the programmable machinery known as PC's.  Of course it's technically possible.  ANYTHING is technically possible in this sense.  The only constraint is the power of the average home-user PC.  Right now it's unfathomable, but it's on the horizon, and that fact alone means we aren't too far away from it.  I certainly couldn't have forseen masive team-oriented battles with complete strangers over telephone lines back in the days I was playing Head Over Heels on the C64.

Re: the argument about 11 year old kids spoiling everyone's fun - it's unavoidable, but I certainly wouldn't call it a problem - certainly not something that would stand in the way of its development.  We have the very same problem right now on any multiplayer game - cheating, camping, killing teammates, etc etc.  It's unavoidable when you introduce the human contingent.  just get over it.  Like in Q2CTF, TFC, WF, or indeed counterstrike, you're going to get the occasional dick, but there are a vastly larger proportion of players actually serious about getting a good gaming experience then not.

About the dial-up connection gripe:- soon won't even be a factor - DSL is becoming more widespread, so much so that in the next 3 years it will more than likely be the standard net connection.  Even if it wasn't, there's Gabe Newell's fabled PowerPlay(tm), and of course the murmurings about a so-called "Internet2" which will utilise faster, more reliable technology.  Face it, one way or another, the future's bright and sparkly, and the days of the 56k V90 standard will be well and truly a thing of the past.

I know it's waaaay too earliy to even suggest at, but I personally believe that this is what Carmack is working on.  I'm not saying this to be controversial, or even to promote a response from any of you.  It just seems to me to be the inevitable 'next big thing' in gaming, and Carmack has the nack of detecting this shit before anyone else.  Plus, if anyone can pull it off and pull it off well, it's Carmack.

I say stop worrying about a pocketful of kids ruining it, stop worrying about bad net connections, stop worrying about the amount of programming needed, and stop worrying about.... er.... other stuff too!


-Chango
#49 by "Flamethrower"
2000-05-18 15:57:42
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
No, Jason, I'm colo<b>u</b>rful. :)
#50 by "Chango"
2000-05-18 16:35:02
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
Shit, sorry about the double-post back there.  Our net conn at work stinks the place out.

*I kinda flipped out for a second there, and the truck kinda flipped out with me.....blahblah....40,000 cans of cola?  Pepsi..Cola?*
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Worlds Collide

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]