gamedevlists-design — List for discussing game development design

RE: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>I think the reason most RTS's clump all the HUD elements=
 together is
>for speed and accessibility.  

Fair enough, but given the choice of a vertical bar that gives=
 you a 
square playfield, or a horizontal bar that gives you a widescreen=
 
playfield, why choose the widescreen?  The screen already starts=
 out 
in a widescreen aspect, and then it gets exacerbated by having=
 HUD 
elements laid out horizontally.

That's what I'm trying to figure out.

Brian

Re: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>I think it depends on games, I think in general FPS games for
>example is more important the wide than the height because u=
 usually
>fight on almost your same level(as u  move horizontally, in=
 other
>games an square is preferred, I think it is a matter of what=
 the
>game is about

Sure, no disagreement there, but then I try to figure out why 
Warcraft 3 is widescreen.  I'm assuming Blizzard put a bunch of 
thought into it, but I can't for the life figure out why it would=
 be 
that way.

Brian

RE: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio

[Erin D. <ed...@re...>]

I think one major distinction to make is whether the game requires you =
to view the HUD elements, or interact with them using a mouse.  In an =
FPS, you only need to view your health, ammo count, current weapon, etc. =
 In an RTS, you need to click on the command icons, the build icons, the =
mini-map, etc.

I think the reason most RTS's clump all the HUD elements together is for =
speed and accessibility.  Mouse movements are minimized when the HUD =
elements are closer together, and it's arguably easier to locate the =
element you need when you have a contained area to search in.

Most RTS's will place non-interactive HUD elements in other locations on =
screen, such as the resource count / population count which are usually =
at the top of the screen.


edaly


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Hook [mailto:ho...@py...]
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 7:23 PM
To: gam...@li...
Subject: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio


Okay, this is one of the more esoteric observations I'll make, but I=20
have to ask since it's been bugging me.

For games with HUD elements, the typical choice you see is to either=20
place the elements along the bottom, or possibly along the bottom and=20
one side.

To me, placing elements in an L or reverse L makes a lot more sense,=20
since you get a playfield area that is much closer to square than a=20
typical 4:3 or 16:9.  This is desirable because it gives you an equal=20
amount of play room in both directions.

However I've noticed that some games, such as Warcraft 3, put all the=20
GUI elements along the top and bottom, and this in turn actually=20
accentuates the rectangularity of the playfield.  You get an extreme=20
letterbox effect, which I would intuitively find undesirable.

The main reasons I can see for preferring this layout are:

1.  Text prefers to be wide, so for chat dialogs, etc. it's better to=20
have it along the bottom.

2.  Letterbox is perceived as more "cinematic".

But I still don't think I like it.  Are there other obvious reasons=20
I'm missing?

Brian




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb:=20
Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth!=20
No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-design mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6

Re: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio

[Fernando S. <fs...@fi...>]

I think it depends on games, I think in general FPS games for example is
more important the wide than the height because u usually fight on almost
your same level(as u  move horizontally, in other games an square is
preferred, I think it is a matter of what the game is about

Fer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...>
To: <gam...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 11:22 PM
Subject: [GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio


Okay, this is one of the more esoteric observations I'll make, but I
have to ask since it's been bugging me.

For games with HUD elements, the typical choice you see is to either
place the elements along the bottom, or possibly along the bottom and
one side.

To me, placing elements in an L or reverse L makes a lot more sense,
since you get a playfield area that is much closer to square than a
typical 4:3 or 16:9.  This is desirable because it gives you an equal
amount of play room in both directions.

However I've noticed that some games, such as Warcraft 3, put all the
GUI elements along the top and bottom, and this in turn actually
accentuates the rectangularity of the playfield.  You get an extreme
letterbox effect, which I would intuitively find undesirable.

The main reasons I can see for preferring this layout are:

1.  Text prefers to be wide, so for chat dialogs, etc. it's better to
have it along the bottom.

2.  Letterbox is perceived as more "cinematic".

But I still don't think I like it.  Are there other obvious reasons
I'm missing?

Brian




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb:
Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth!
No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-design mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6

[GD-Design] (GUI) Playfield aspect ratio

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

Okay, this is one of the more esoteric observations I'll make,=
 but I 
have to ask since it's been bugging me.

For games with HUD elements, the typical choice you see is to=
 either 
place the elements along the bottom, or possibly along the bottom=
 and 
one side.

To me, placing elements in an L or reverse L makes a lot more=
 sense, 
since you get a playfield area that is much closer to square than=
 a 
typical 4:3 or 16:9.  This is desirable because it gives you an=
 equal 
amount of play room in both directions.

However I've noticed that some games, such as Warcraft 3, put all=
 the 
GUI elements along the top and bottom, and this in turn actually=
 
accentuates the rectangularity of the playfield.  You get an=
 extreme 
letterbox effect, which I would intuitively find undesirable.

The main reasons I can see for preferring this layout are:

1.  Text prefers to be wide, so for chat dialogs, etc. it's=
 better to 
have it along the bottom.

2.  Letterbox is perceived as more "cinematic".

But I still don't think I like it.  Are there other obvious=
 reasons 
I'm missing?

Brian

Re: RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[Jan E. <ch...@in...>]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 ge...@ub... wrote:

>didn't actually play halo, but i can't see how this is any different.  
>the fatal flaw is in the control scheme period.  console manufacturers
>simply created bad controls...

I think that console controllers are excellent. Thinking about the
requirement for a small controller with a lot of functionality and the
need to be able to take a lot of punushment, I think they have succeeded
very well. Who the h*ll would like to sit in your favourite TV couch with
a bulky keyboard and a mouse on the floor just to play some game? Not
doable. Mouse an keyboard are better for a selected few game types, such
as FPS and RTS-like games, but they need so much more *clean* space (for
the mouse to work) so that the combination is useless in front of a TV
(where at least I want to play my games).

-- 
  And it came to pass that in time the Great God Om spake unto Brutha,
    the Chosen One: "Psst!"
                                        -- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[<phi...@pl...>]

Tom:
> If (like me) you are one of the people that has played Halo and become
good at the dual-stick controls, Metroid drives you bonkers.

Restated like this, I would agree. Dual stick, with lock-on, would have
been best for MP. Being able to use the look stick to move the sight
relative to the lock would have been cool. Non-homing weapons were near
useless on fast moving enemies.

Javier:
>After playing with the XBox controller, the PS2 seems too smal and...
light, or weak, or something.

The dead zones on the DualShock are far too large. The actual sticks on the
XBox, and GC are much more accurate, although I dislike the sprung loaded
shoulder buttons on each. Made Metroid physically painful, and GunValkyrie
impossible to actually play, especially when combined with it's use of the
stick buttons. In fact, if you want a pathologically bad FPS control
system, look at GunValkyrie.

Cheers,
Phil

Re: Re: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[<ge...@ub...>]

>> first person simply does NOT work on a console -
>goldeneye had horrible controls - this endless
>'nudging' that you have to do to try and get the
>cursor centered on someone to shoot them is
>useless.
>
>You sound like a PC Gamer, the goldeneye controls
>were fantastic IMO. 
>Most of your problems were probably related to
>co-ordination of your 
>hands.  If you have not used a gamepad much you
>_will_ obviously find it 
>different to what you are used to, the "old
>keyboard mouse combo".

still doesn't get rid of the endless 'nudging' that you have to do to try and aim at enemies.

i've seen players that spent WAAAAY to much time playing games like golden-eye and medal of honour STILL having problems with this (in particular).

you simply can not provide the kind of sensitivity or accuracy that a mouse can with the console stick.

but again, apples and oranges.

having auto-lock definitely improves the situation, but also reduces the feeling of 'skill' that the player gets from personally aiming and taking out the baddies in the game...almost like cheating...

but again, yes i'm a PC gamer - and i've only ever seen the playstation controller.

i haven't even SEEN an xbox outside of a store or xbox booth, let alone played one - but that's a whole different discussion :}

cheers
mike w
www.uber-geek.ca

Re: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[J. G. <jg-...@jg...>]

Hi,

Had to jump in here.

on the 04/04/03 21:12, ge...@ub... wrote:
> i have yet to find a single console game that provides even remotely as good of a control scheme as the good old keyboard mouse combo.
> 
> first person simply does NOT work on a console - goldeneye had horrible controls - this endless 'nudging' that you have to do to try and get the cursor centered on someone to shoot them is useless.

You sound like a PC Gamer, the goldeneye controls were fantastic IMO. 
Most of your problems were probably related to co-ordination of your 
hands.  If you have not used a gamepad much you _will_ obviously find it 
different to what you are used to, the "old keyboard mouse combo".

First time I used a keyboard + mouse it felt wierd, but sure enough 
after 30mins or so I was loving it.  Try playing an FPS with the mouse 
in your left hand and I am sure it will take you a while to adjust to it 
again.

Cheers

JG

Re: RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[Dan T. <da...@cs...>]

Judging from the reactions from everyone I talk to who do both, Console FPS
controls are adequat(sp?) for playing against other entites bound by the
same control scheme. However I have noticed that people who only play FPS on
consoles regard themselves as ultimate when they whip everyone on XBox Live
or what have you, and those who play with a mouse and keyboard consider
themselves ultimate when they mop up in counterstrike. The few times I have
seen crossover where the same person plays extensivly with both schemes,
they say that the mouse and keyboard wins.

However I don't think this thread really meant to go into that debate (even
though I added to it).
From what I hear the Halo style is the best for a console, its just that a
good mousers will in fact mop the floor with the blood of a good console
player.

-Dan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...>
To: <gam...@li...>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls


> >didn't actually play halo, but i can't see how this is any
> >different.  the fatal flaw is in the control scheme period.  console
> >manufacturers simply created bad controls...
>
> Forgive me for sounding harsh, but given that numerous people have
> lauded Halo's controls -- including hardcore FPS players -- and you
> haven't even seen it, doesn't it seem a little extreme to flat out
> blow it off as "simply doesn't work" when, in fact, it does?
>
> -Hook
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb:
> Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth!
> No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
> http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-design mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6
>
>

RE: RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[Garett B. <gt...@st...>]

I think the best way to reproduce mouse-like yaw control on a console would
be to dedicate a single stick to yaw, and return yaw values as an angle. In
this case, whenever x^2+y^2 > 0.8 or so (ie. only near the outer ring of the
stick), dtheta = arctan (y0/x0) - arctan (y1/x1), yaw = yaw + s*dtheta,
where "s" is some variable scalar for sensitivity.  This allows players to
turn and stop on a dime, which is the greatest advantage of the mouse.
Unfortunately, now you need to use another axis entirely for pitch.  Perhaps
pitch and strafe on the second stick?

It was mentioned several times that the pitch control in Halo is less
sensitive than the yaw control.  This seems like a step in the right
direction, but I'd suggest mapping the stick's maximum positive y value to
looking straight up, zero y to looking straight ahead, and maximum negative
y to looking straight down, ie. pitch = y*i*2pi, where "i" is +1 or -1 to
allow invertibility.  Perhaps the axis' granularity is too course to allow
this, providing only a few discrete values between zero and max?

With regard to the conventional, single-axis yaw approach, I'd suggest
raising the axis input to the 3rd or 5th power before feeding it to the
camera control.  This would result in a wide range of sensitive control near
the center of the stick, and maximum turn rate near the extremeties (eg.
0.1^3 = 0.001, 1.0^3 = 1.0).

Once again, this may not be possible due to low input granularity.  Maybe
the analog sticks are not effectively analog as much as they are multiply
digital.  I'd really like to see a dual stick controller that could produce
at least 10 discrete outputs between zero and one in each direction, ie.
0.0, 0.1, 0.2, ...1.0.  While I'm dreaming, how about a console controller
with one stick and one trackball?

Re: RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>didn't actually play halo, but i can't see how this is any
>different.  the fatal flaw is in the control scheme period. =
 console
>manufacturers simply created bad controls...

Forgive me for sounding harsh, but given that numerous people=
 have 
lauded Halo's controls -- including hardcore FPS players -- and=
 you 
haven't even seen it, doesn't it seem a little extreme to flat=
 out 
blow it off as "simply doesn't work" when, in fact, it does?

-Hook

Re: RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[<ge...@ub...>]

i have yet to find a single console game that provides even remotely as good of a control scheme as the good old keyboard mouse combo.

first person simply does NOT work on a console - goldeneye had horrible controls - this endless 'nudging' that you have to do to try and get the cursor centered on someone to shoot them is useless.

i didn't find medal of honour any better...

you put someone on a console playing the same game against someone on a keyboard and mouse and a pc - and the pc player will be mopping the floor with the console player...i can guarantee that.

didn't actually play halo, but i can't see how this is any different.  the fatal flaw is in the control scheme period.  console manufacturers simply created bad controls...

they work for some types of games, driving games, etc but for first person - simply doesn't work.

mike w
www.uber-geek.ca 




>I didn't go into detail on algorithms, but i like
>the Metroid control
>system. It isn't an FPS control system, and the
>game's not an FPS :) I have
>one niggle regarding the interaction of scanning
>and combat, though.
>
>I still reckon the grandaddy is goldeneye :) halo
>worked well, timsplitters
>i've not played much.
>
>jamie
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
>gam...@li...
>[mailto:gam...@li...]On
>Behalf Of
>Javier Arevalo
>Sent: 04 April 2003 15:48
>To: gam...@li...
>Subject: [GD-Design] FPS console controls
>
>
>The issue of FPS controls in console games just
>came up in the algorithms
>list, but it seems more appropriate here. People
>mentioned Halo and
>Timesplitters as good examples (I personally
>disagree about TS), and Metroid
>as a bad example. However, in Metroid the gameplay
>is well adapted to the
>(limited) control scheme.
>
>So, well, discuss...
>
>  Javier Arevalo
>  Pyro Studios
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb:
>Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of
>bandwidth!
>No other company gives more support or power for
>your dedicated server
>http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
>_______________________________________________
>Gamedevlists-design mailing list
>Gam...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
>Archives:
>http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=556
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: 
>Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of
>bandwidth! 
>No other company gives more support or power for
>your dedicated server
>http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
>_______________________________________________
>Gamedevlists-design mailing list
>Gam...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
>Archives:
>http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=556
>
>

Re: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[Javier A. <ja...@py...>]

I basically agree with what Tom said (haven't played Metroid Prime yet, just
checked it for a couple minutes at EBX). Halo was the first console FPS
where I was able to forget about the controller and just "think" what I
wanted to do while my hands performed it.

However, it's not just a matter of controller setup. I recalled that TS2 (on
the GC) had the same control system, and I was never in control there, a
couple of enemies moving around me in an open area would be a fair challenge
to shoot at. I just tried Medal of Honor (PS2) with the "advanced"
(sharpshooter?) setup, and once again I found myself missing enemies at
point blank because my control over targetting was not precise enough nad I
would overshoot or undershoot my turns. In Halo I was even able to shoot
moving targets with the sniper rifle.

Now, the question is, why would the same control scheme work well or bad on
these different games (and consoles)?

 - Invert Y axis option is pretty vital, and Halo did a good job of checking
which one the player was better used to. It is also interesting to separate
the invert Y axis option for flying vehicles and ground movement.

 - controller stick "feel". Some controllers have harder springs than
others, or the way your hand grabs it gives the thumb a a better position,
or... essentially an ergonomics issue. After playing with the XBox
controller, the PS2 seems too smal and... light, or weak, or something.

 - Stick dead zone (more hardware issue than software, but both can be
involved). I got the feeling that the dead zone for stick centering was much
larger in MoH/PS2 than in Halo, and that it was annoying in MoH when I
wanted those little adjustments to turns, it just seemed that I had to turn
the stick too much before turning began, so it took me longer to perform
little turns.

 - sensitivity adjustment. Using independent sensitivities for vertical and
horizontal axes is crucial, since in general you want vertical sensitivity
to be less. I guess there is also something to be said about which curve to
use based on the stick value: linear? Power-of-something?

 - Interaction between stick axes? Meaning, when you fully push an axis,
changes are you also affect the other. Should this be detected and taken
into account?

 - acceleration. You could have some acceleration over the entire range of
the axis, but definitely want some acceleration when the stick. A good idea
may also be to engage  max acceleration when you suddenly turn the stick
fully in the opposite direction.

 - auto-targeting. This is where things start to get interesting. You shoot
in a general direction, the bullet automatically goes to the target you're
almost aiming at. The more obvious this is done, the less believable, it has
to work. It gets trickier to implement when targets are able to hide and
expose just a part of the body (like those shielded aliens in Halo, or guys
using scenery for protection).

 - turning helpers. I don't know about this, but it sounds like it *might*
be possible, kind of like the autotargeting, to adjust the orientation
slightly when the player stops turning with a target almost centered.

How have people approached these kinds of parameters?

Then on the issue of actions and action buttons. Was I the only one who
found it very hard in Halo to whack guys while moving? The problem was that
I had to remove my thumb from the turning stick in order to use the melee
action button. The Getaway seems to do a good job of meleeing a guy
automatically when up-close. In general, the two-stick setup reduces action
buttons to pressing the sticks (which makes the sticks also move unreliably)
and the shoulder buttons, of which different consoles have different number.

Lock-on schemes reduces the skills required by the player, and the potential
number of options for combat - think of the turn-strafe combos for shooting
the Hunter's back in Halo. They also seem to reduce the options for vertical
combat. How does this work with snipers?

Ok, long enough already.

  Javier Arevalo
  Pyro Studios

RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[Tom F. <to...@mu...>]

For reference:

Halo & TS - one stick does look, the other does move. TS wasn't a great
implementation, Halo was. This is essentially the console equivalent of
mouse+WASD on the PC.

Metroid - the stick does move + turn, but press a button and it becomes
move+strafe, press another button and it becomes turn+look up/down. You
cannot look up and down and move at the same time.


Here's the problem.

Metroid has a great control scheme. It's well thought-out, people can pick
it up easily, etc. It's extremely friendly to the casual player.

BUT

If (like me) you are one of the people that has played Halo and become good
at the dual-stick controls, Metroid drives you bonkers. Once you've got the
hang of the dual-stick arrangement, evenrything else feels terrible. Having
to unlearn everything you knew about moving in an FPS environment is
incredibly painful. I almost stopped playing MP because of this, except that
every single other thing about the game was so brilliant that I kept
playing.

I'm now pretty good with the MP controls, and since the game difficulty and
levels are designed around the control scheme, they're not actually a
problem. But even now, it still feels very limiting compared to Halo - you
can't easily move in a different direction to the way you're going. You
can't look up and down and move at the same time. You have to precisely aim
at narrow doorways, or you hit them - you can't easily "wobble" yourself
with strafe to hit them. It's like walking around with your head in a vice -
you can do it, but it's not comfortable.

I don't think there is anyone who is used to both control sets that would
claim the dual-stick method is not superior. (note - MP's "lock-on" feature
is great, and as long as it doesn't ruin the game, should be added to any
dual-stick control scheme - that's a separate issue).

HOWEVER

The dual-stick control is a real pain for casual players to use. Halo helped
a lot by having a much smaller vertical scale than horizontal, which does
lessen the number of times new player end up looking at their feet or the
sky. But it's still trickier.

SO

I think games should do both, and let the user choose.

BUT

There's a problem in deathmatch, because anyone using the MP scheme is
almost certainly going to get their arse kicked.



Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke and Microsoft MVP.

This email is the product of your deranged imagination,
and does not in any way imply existence of the author.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Javier Arevalo [mailto:ja...@py...]
> Sent: 04 April 2003 15:48
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: [GD-Design] FPS console controls
> 
> 
> The issue of FPS controls in console games just came up in 
> the algorithms
> list, but it seems more appropriate here. People mentioned Halo and
> Timesplitters as good examples (I personally disagree about 
> TS), and Metroid
> as a bad example. However, in Metroid the gameplay is well 
> adapted to the
> (limited) control scheme.
> 
> So, well, discuss...
> 
>   Javier Arevalo
>   Pyro Studios
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: 
> Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! 
> No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
> http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-design mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=556
> 

RE: [GD-Design] FPS console controls

[Jamie F. <ja...@qu...>]

I didn't go into detail on algorithms, but i like the Metroid control
system. It isn't an FPS control system, and the game's not an FPS :) I have
one niggle regarding the interaction of scanning and combat, though.

I still reckon the grandaddy is goldeneye :) halo worked well, timsplitters
i've not played much.

jamie


-----Original Message-----
From: gam...@li...
[mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
Javier Arevalo
Sent: 04 April 2003 15:48
To: gam...@li...
Subject: [GD-Design] FPS console controls


The issue of FPS controls in console games just came up in the algorithms
list, but it seems more appropriate here. People mentioned Halo and
Timesplitters as good examples (I personally disagree about TS), and Metroid
as a bad example. However, in Metroid the gameplay is well adapted to the
(limited) control scheme.

So, well, discuss...

  Javier Arevalo
  Pyro Studios



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb:
Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth!
No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-design mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=556

[GD-Design] FPS console controls

[Javier A. <ja...@py...>]

The issue of FPS controls in console games just came up in the algorithms
list, but it seems more appropriate here. People mentioned Halo and
Timesplitters as good examples (I personally disagree about TS), and Metroid
as a bad example. However, in Metroid the gameplay is well adapted to the
(limited) control scheme.

So, well, discuss...

  Javier Arevalo
  Pyro Studios

[GD-Design] PureAnarchyGames.com seeking Independent Games for Online Publishing

[<ge...@ub...>]

PureAnarchyGames.com are opening our doors on April
1st, April Fools Day, 2003 and we are currently
seeking independent game developers with Games ready
to sell through our online Portal
www.pureanarchygames.com

With extremely competitive royalty rates, no-setup
fees and an open-door policy for Games (no
restrictions on the Engine or Development platform
involved), PureAnarchyGames are set to change the
foundation of the Independent Game industry.

Check out http://developer.pureanarchygames.com for
additional information, submission guidelines &
forms, as well as Developer FAQ's, sample payment
and royalty schedules and more.

This is a unique opportunity for independent game
developers to get in on the ground floor of the
Newest Independent Publisher on the `Net. With our
non-exclusive publishing agreements, developer
support (through cutting-edge open source
technology, merchandise, music & video/film
licensing, business support and more),
PureAnarchyGames is THE way of the Future for
Independent Game Development.

Check us out Today –
http://developer.pureanarchygames.com

For additional information or to sign an NDA to
discuss YOUR game, please contact:

Mike Wuetherick
Gekido Design Group
dev...@pu...
http://developer.pureanarchygames.com

ps:  my apologies for cross-posting here and the gd-general list, but i would think that not everyone is a member of both lists.

RE: GameRankings.com was Re: [GD-Design] Re: Gamedevlists-design digest, Vol 1 #38 - 10 msgs

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>Apparently, some publishers pay an unhealthy amount of notice=
 to
>gamerankings.com. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I'd rather be judged on the aggregate opinion of multiple sites=
 and 
users than just on a few select sites.

Unless the game is selling mad, then I want to be judged on=
 sales.  
But if it sells poorly with good reviews, I want them to=
 concentrate 
on the positive reviews =3D)

Brian

RE: GameRankings.com was Re: [GD-Design] Re: Gamedevlists-design digest, Vol 1 #38 - 10 msgs

[Tom F. <to...@mu...>]

Apparently, some publishers pay an unhealthy amount of notice to
gamerankings.com. Be afraid. Be very afraid.


Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke and Microsoft MVP.

This email is the product of your deranged imagination,
and does not in any way imply existence of the author.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Hook [mailto:ho...@py...]
> Sent: 27 February 2003 19:47
> To: gam...@li...;
> gam...@li...
> Subject: GameRankings.com was Re: [GD-Design] Re: Gamedevlists-design
> digest, Vol 1 #38 - 10 msgs
> 
> 
> Phil brings up a really good site, gamerankings.com, which I didn't 
> discover until a week or so ago.
> 
> The main thing I find interesting is how many love some games that I 
> deplored, although I have yet to find a game I really liked that was 
> generally derided.  
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-design mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6
> 

GameRankings.com was Re: [GD-Design] Re: Gamedevlists-design digest, Vol 1 #38 - 10 msgs

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

Phil brings up a really good site, gamerankings.com, which I=
 didn't 
discover until a week or so ago.

The main thing I find interesting is how many love some games=
 that I 
deplored, although I have yet to find a game I really liked that=
 was 
generally derided.  

Brian

GameRankings.com was Re: [GD-Design] Re: Gamedevlists-design digest, Vol 1 #38 - 10 msgs

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

Phil brings up a really good site, gamerankings.com, which I=
 didn't 
discover until a week or so ago.

The main thing I find interesting is how many love some games=
 that I 
deplored, although I have yet to find a game I really liked that=
 was 
generally derided.  

Brian

Re: [GD-Design] Re: Gamedevlists-design digest, Vol 1 #38 - 10 msgs

[<phi...@pl...>]

Brian Hook <ho...@py...>:
> The fact of the matter is that the popularity of the Web has allowed any
idiot that knows FrontPage to throw up a Web site and have an opinion that
someone will listen to.  Such is life, you just have to hope that there are
more level-headed, intelligent reviewers out there than dishonest, lazy and
disinterested ones.

Fortunately the Web has also brought us aggregation sites like gamerankings
and gamefaqs. Plus news sites like eurogamer that have public comment
sections.

I only buy the occasional printed issue for the console demo's, and I'm
looking forward to being able to download those.

Cheers,
Phil

Re: [GD-Design] RTS vs. turnbased

[<phi...@pl...>]

> When you want to move from a point A to a point B fastly, put the cursor
on "fast", in fight reduce to "normal", and when it become hard, switch to
"slow"...

Sim City?

Sim City 2000 definately did this. Albeit with little fine control, 4 or
five settings from pause to 'cheetah'. Essential for handling the massive
fires resulting from the near inevitable UFO cull of arcologies.

Cheers,
Phil

RE: [GD-Design] RTS vs. turnbased

[Tom F. <to...@mu...>]

StarTopia has a pause which lets you wander around and look at your station,
but not give orders. So no real gameplay implications we thought, just a fun
way to show off the graphics. However, there are occasional bombs planted by
saboteurs, and you have ten seconds to find them before they go off. Of
course if you pause the game as soon as you get the "there is a bomb on your
station" message, you can spend as long as you like looking for them. Doh!
We only realised that a few weeks before ship. But as bombs drive some
people absolutely insane with hatred and frustration, and letting them pause
the game somewhat solves the problem, we left it in.

X-Com Apocalypse did this sort of gameplay superbly. Although I loved the
turn-based play in the first two, and Apocalypse still had a turn-based
mode, of the two, I preferred the pausable realtime mode.


Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke and Microsoft MVP.

This email is the product of your deranged imagination,
and does not in any way imply existence of the author.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan-Assen Ivanov [mailto:as...@ha...]
> Sent: 27 February 2003 09:45
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: RE: [GD-Design] RTS vs. turnbased
> 
> 
> 
> > Also Bioware RPG can be switched between real time and 
> > "paused" mode. 
> 
> Actually, some people wrote us to say they actually play
> Celtic Kings in that mode :-) because the Pause is 
> implemented in a way
> that allows you to give orders while paused. We hadn't seen
> it coming, it was definitely "emergent game abuse" :-)