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

[Charles G. <ch...@ve...>]

On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 15:28 -0500, Steve Baker wrote:
> 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.
> 
> It's not just a matter of artistic interpretation either - I've worked
> on this game for quite some time - and I know as a matter of FACT that
> karts need to be much more easily distinguished - and that they need to
> look more visually interesting from behind.  It almost doesn't matter
> what they look like from the front and sides.

I hear you.  Ingo hears you.  Everybody hears you.  Nobody is saying you
are wrong.  Nobody is saying that the _end_ result will not be like
this.

BUT YOU ARE BEING UNREASONABLE.  Those are _preliminary_ sketches and
_draft_ 3D models.  They are a _start_.  A _base_.  Stop prejudging that
which is not only unrefined but where the ink isn't even dry.

They will change, your feedback is good, but you've got to stop being so
damn impatient otherwise contributors like Ingo will go elsewhere.

And, despite the early stage of the karts, you must admit they are far,
far better than the existing karts.  So, whilst we all hear and (at
least I) agree with your opinions on how to improve them, can you please
stop being so harsh because our response isn't instant.

> I've been doing 3D graphics (and games) since the mid 1980's - and my
> job (flight simulation) has a lot to do with how people recognise
> targets at distance on 3D graphic displays.  This isn't just idle
> supposition.

Who said you were wrong?  Quote somebody that _refuted_ the need for the
karts to look drastically different.  Ingo has already made each kart
look different, and those looks simply need exaggerating.

> I don't have 'authority' - this is an OpenSource effort - we proceed
> by consensus or not at all - which is why I presented my viewpoint
> as clearly as possible and asked for some discussion.
> 
> If I had authority, then my repeated assertions that these karts are
> 
> a) Not 'wild' enough.
> ...and...
> b) Too boring from behind.
> 
> ...would have resulted in someone building some wilder karts that look
> more interesting from behind rather than a procession of very similar
> looking things that look almost identical from behind (at realistic
> ranges and resolutions).

UUUURRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

We are but a few days in.  We've not even had the first meeting.  Can
you just get off of your pulpit until there's at least been a _chance_
for some reflection on the INITIAL, DRAFT, PRELIMINARY contributions.

> I did think GoTM's philosophy was to get in quick

Quick means a month or two.  We are 3 days into July.  3 freakin' days.

> * 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.

Patience is a virtue.  Ingo and others are talented people.  The
iterations and evolution of their work will be more than pleasing, it
will be a vast improvement.

> * 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.

Give it a chance.  And why shouldn't there be a combination of short,
medium, and long tracks.  Why limit ourselves?

> * 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.

This all needs discussion.  You haven't even let the dust settle and you
presume that we are out to do the opposite to what you want.  When we
have an irc meeting or two, this will all get discussed and all get
agreed upon in a reasonable fashion.

Personally, I think there's a good balance to be had between picking up
stuff, shooting, and racing.  Whilst new weapons and gadgets are
necessary, too many could upset the balance of the race.  It is a racing
game at heart, just a fun one that doesn't play by the rules.  But you
still have to finish ahead of your competitors.

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

So your rant about not wanting everything to be improved was completely
unecessary.  You just stated that you want everything improving except
the GUI, yet your previous email bemoaned the fact that we wanted to
improve everything.  You must see how frustrating that will be for
others to read.

> That's what (IMHO) was expected at the outset when those 44 people
> voted for TuxKar as the GoTM.

They voted for TuxKart to be the next GotM because they thought it had
the most potential.  Potential that a team can realise.  You are not
fostering teamwork with your quick-draw rants because we aren't
instantly making you happy.

3 FREAKIN' DAYS!!!!!!!!!!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A frustrated...
-- 
- Charlie

Charles Goodwin <ch...@ve...>
Online @ www.charlietech.com