Re: [TuxKart-devel] The nature of this game.

[Ingo R. <gr...@gm...>]

Steve Baker <sjb...@ai...> writes:

> I have tried to explain the problem with them - buy all I'm seeing
> is more of the same.  I don't need to see them textured to know that
> they are not what the game needs.

How do you come to the conclusion that the game needs 'interesting
from behind karts'? I mean, sure, they shouldn't look especially bad
or completly similar from behind, but I really don't see a need to
make this such an important point. People have been playing car games
for years and often all the cars looked exactly the same, except the
color, and nobody seems to go mad about it.

> I keep explaining this - and all I'm seeing are karts that (when
> seen at actual game resolutions, speeds and distances) look pretty
> similar.

Yes, all have four wheels, as a kart should have. As said, increasing
the characters size on the karts should let them look reasonably
different.

> Now go look again at the link I posted from the Wacky Racers cartoon
> or the MarioKart DoubleDash - and think about how much easier those
> are to recognise and what animation possibilities they present for
> makeing things interesting from behind.

Getting them more interesting from behind is only good as long as it
doesn't distract from driving. And well, getting them 'Wacky Racers'
look-a-like would really go over the top and could ruin the gameplay
experience quite a bit, since it surly would distract. Beside that it
would surly hide the characters inside the karts, which I think are an
very important part and should thus be very visible.

Don't forget that a 'good look' only lasts for the first few minutes
of the game, after that people will care about gameplay. So its really
only imporant that the game looks 'good enough', not perfect, not
especially 'interesting from behind', just good enough that they don't
instantly yell about its ugliness.

> However, yes - these are the only contributions so far - but I need
> to say that these are not (in my opinion) the kinds of thing we
> need.

What the game needs is a bit better graphics and a lot better
gameplay.

> What concerns me it that the general thrust is 180 degrees away from
> the general direction that TuxKart is intended to take.

I still fail to see how this is '180 degrees away', its just the look
of the game and it really isn't that important.

>> No chains, so let people work on what they want to work on. If the
>> end result is an improvement, then you win. If not, you get to keep
>> the old GUI. No loss. Why are you complaining about a no-lose
>> situation?
>
> Because with finite effort and limited time, we should channel our
> efforts where it's most needed.

GUI is one reason where work *is* needed. You can ruin or at least
hamper a game very easily if you make the GUI to complicated and
inaccessible.

>> Everybody has happily agreed to stick with Gown.
> No - they havn't - VERY far from it.
> That move to radically change her 'look' is PARTICULARLY upsetting
> because I had gone to all that trouble to find out what female
> gamers would actually prefer to see for Tux's female counterpart.
> The only pressure to change her is some people's desire to change
> things for change's sake.

Its not for "change's sake", its because her current look is really
quite ugly, as said "Tux with Tits". I really don't want keep
anything, unless there is good reason to do so.

> I disagree about BSOD - but OTOH, I don't see how an ice-cube is any
> better!

I consider anything that isn't anti-microsoft propaganda better than
BSOD.

> So, dumping BSOD and using the stupid ice-cube is *CLEARLY* change
> for change's sake.

Its a change to get rid of this completly pointless propaganda. Free
Software has to learn to stand on its own, bashing other products
doesn't really help here. Beside BSOD just doesn't fit into the crowed
of other animal-like characters, and yes, neither does ice-cube, which
is why he shouldn't be used either.

> It subtracts interest rather than adding to it.

And BSOD is interesting exactly how?

> No - but I'll be VERY suprised if we get quality tracks in
> sufficient quantity to fulfil all of our needs. Fixing up some of
> the existing tracks is one way to do more with less effort...tossing
> some of them out is certainly necessary, tossing all of them out
> just isn't feasible.

Getting 10 to 15 tracks shouldn't be too much of a problem. I don't
see how recycling the current tracks should help here much.
BTW. We already have a blender export script that handles the objects
placed on the track:

 * http://will.encanners.net/arca/

> It's not the *standard* of the content - it's the *direction* of the
> content...away from a wild game with crazy looking karts and nice
> long, cutesy looking tracks

Well, it doesn't have crazy looking karts or long, cutesy looking
tracks now, so I really don't see how we are moving away from
anything.

> - towards a very basic go-kart simulation with animals driving the
> karts instead of humans.

I wouldn't call it simulation due to all those special items and such,
but beside that I don't see much reasons to not target 'karts with
animals', the original MarioKart wasn't much else and especially due
to that it was so great.

> There was NO discussion of taming the game down and turning it into
> a regular gokart game.

The game is a MarioKart clone, MarioKart is just 'karts with animals
and specials', so I don't see how we are turning it any more into a
regular gokart game than it already is.

> I did think GoTM's philosophy was to get in quick - do some quick
> fixes that could reasonably be managed in a couple of months - then
> move on.

If GotM was just about quick fixes, there wouldn't be a need for GotM
at all. GotM is about boosting the gameplay experience quite a bit
with whatever is doable, since we already had a volunteer for GUI and
new kart designs, I would just say continue that way, no need stop
"because it isn't doable" while people are already doing it.

> * We need are some much more INTERESTING karts - not simply karts
> with a lot more polygons that still look kinda similar. Stop working
> on all of the karts we have now - build more radical designs.

How would they improve the gameplay experience?

> * We need better tracks - more complex, longer, more interesting -
> NOT shorter and simpler. Plan on every track being AT LEAST a couple
> of kilometers long...preferably more like four kilometers - so we
> can get lap durations in the 60 to 90 second range with karts
> travelling at 60 to 120mph. Sketch out some track plans, make lists
> of objects like trees, barrels, animals, volcanoes, castles...etc.

My favorite track is still the first one of MarioKart (SNES), driving
around it takes 10-15seconds, yet, mastering it completly takes quite
some time. I kind of get the feeling that all you want it just more
'<blink>-tags', while kind of losing the focus about the core
gameplay.

> * We need more emphasis on the fun aspects of picking up stuff and
> dropping/shooting/throwing at each other - and LESS emphasis on it
> being a pure racing game. Think new weapons, gadgets, fun things
> that each character and each kart can do that's different and
> special. Make a list of those for each character - make sure the
> artwork and these effects tie together.

Just 'more' won't make the game better, it will actually make it
worse. What the game needs are a few very well balanced items, not
just tons of crap.

> * We need programming effort on special effects, animation, AI and
> Physics - NOT GUI.

GUI will seriously impact the gameplay experince, special effects and
animation won't, not saying we don't need them, but I think you
dramatically underestimate the importance of a good GUI.

-- 
WWW:      http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/ 
JabberID: gr...@ja... 
ICQ:      59461927