Thread: [TuxKart-devel] The nature of this game.
Status: Alpha
Brought to you by:
sjbaker
Menu
▾
▴
tuxkart-devel
|
From: Steve B. <sjb...@ai...> - 2004-07-03 17:02:20
|
As must already be very aparrent, I'm not a happy camper. Just
about everything that's been discussed here since the GoTM vote
has been 180 degrees away from where I think it should be going.
It's increasingly aparrent that for many people here, the idea of
improving and extending TuxKart has somehow changed into a desire
to essentially throw away EVERYTHING that currently exists and start
what is an entirely new game.
1) Ingo's is clearly of the view that he wants a fairly 'normal'
GoKart racing game. TuxKart is not intended to be that.
His models (whilst very nice) are of essentially standard
go-karts and not the wilder designs of games like DoubleDash
and others of the 'krazy kart' genre.
He's also expressed (in the Wikki section on tracks) that he
wants more normal tracks - shorter laps and a greater emphasis
on kart driving with less on the gadgets, powerups and collectibles
that are also the trademark of the genre I have in mind.
He also wants much shorter laps - I feel the ones we currently have
are already too short (again - compared to other games of this
genre). What he is suggesting is true to what real go-kart racing
is all about - but very far from what go kart games are like.
2) Changing the GUI entirely. Well, I can at least understand the
logic behind this (although I still disagree with it) - but I think
it's out of scope for the GoTM effort - it wasn't even mentioned
in the ToDo lists that people voted on. But - OK - those aren't
meant to chain us down.
3) Characters: Several people have argued to throw out all of the
existing characters (with the possible exception of Tux). Fine,
but unnecessary in my view. This too was not something that came
up in the "ToDo" list or the pre-vote discussions.
4) Tracks: Do we intend to improve the existing tracks and add more,
or toss out all of them and make entirely new ones? I kinda get
the feeling from reading Wiki and peoples comments that the latter
is the basic intent.
If all of these things come to pass - along with the (very needed) AI
and physics changes - then there is NOTHING left of the original game.
You might as well leave TuxKart alone and write an entirely new game
from scratch. This is fine by me - but there is no chance in hell
you'll get it finished in two months.
IMHO, GoTM has to go back to the original ToDo list that was voted
on - and confine themselves to improving what's there rather than
tossing everything out and starting again.
One of GoTM's bullet items when choosing a game to work on is the
cooperation of the original author/maintainer. I can tell you that,
my cooperation level is plunging - you guys are doing a fine job
of pissing off the person who single-handedly got the game to the
point where people liked it enough to overwhelmingly vote for it.
All of those people didn't vote for your private visions of the
game - because those visions were never expressed prior to the
vote. They voted to improve what they already saw and liked.
Well, let's do exactly that - and not toss it all out and start
again from zero.
If the decision is to toss everything out and start again then
please create a new SourceForge account in order to do exactly
that and not tear TuxKart apart and leave a smoking ruin at the end
of two months - because that's exactly what'll happen if you try
to tear everything down and rebuild it.
Please discuss.
---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
HomeEmail: <sjb...@ai...> WorkEmail: <sj...@li...>
HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org
Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ UL+++$ P--- L++++$ E--- W+++ N o+ K? w--- !O M-
V-- PS++ PE- Y-- PGP-- t+ 5 X R+++ tv b++ DI++ D G+ e++ h--(-) r+++ y++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
From: Charles G. <ch...@ve...> - 2004-07-03 17:53:57
|
On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 12:04 -0500, Steve Baker wrote: > Please discuss. You're overreacting and making things seem more extreme than they are. Track size and length is up to the people who design / make the tracks. We can group together shorter tracks vs. longer tracks. The karts... well, you're way out of line on this one. You're incredibly harsh on Ingo's _early_ designs. I don't see you or anybody else producing anything yet. He's only done the very basics, he's not declared any of them to be finished models. Don't like 'em? Take one of his models and modify it a bit then, show us what you would like. It's not like the karts in TuxKart are anything other than plain and all the same. Whilst Ingo's designs might not yet satisfy your wildest hopes and dreams, they are a _massive_ improvement on what exists. The GUI does need work for it to compliment the game. I'm sorry if you feel it doesn't, but everybody except you has expressed a preference for a different type of GUI. Are we all wrong and you right? Of course, nobody is 100% right, but if people are prepared to put in the work and produce a polished, snazzy GUI then why the f... are you complaining? It's not like we have ripped TuxKart apart and put in half-baked bits into the game. It's not like anything other than design and ideas has been done yet. You might think you were trying to be clever and 'nip it in the bud' but instead it was like the response of a spoilt child. Steve, that was a pompous rant by you. It really was. I hope Ingo and others do not rise to the flames within it. -- - Charlie Charles Goodwin <ch...@ve...> Online @ www.charlietech.com |
|
From: Charles G. <ch...@ve...> - 2004-07-03 18:27:45
|
Ok, rant about rant aside, here's a more constructive critique. On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 12:04 -0500, Steve Baker wrote: > As must already be very aparrent, I'm not a happy camper. Just > about everything that's been discussed here since the GoTM vote > has been 180 degrees away from where I think it should be going. It's going the same way that was discussed in the forums. More and new characters, with bigger and better karts. And then some polish on the game play (physics / AI) plus anything else people are willing to contribute. It seems (from my perspective) to be going along exactly to plan. > It's increasingly aparrent that for many people here, the idea of > improving and extending TuxKart has somehow changed into a desire > to essentially throw away EVERYTHING that currently exists and start > what is an entirely new game. No, it's not. It's "take an existing code base and idea and improve upon it." We're not saying, "ditch the code." We're not saying, "ditch the idea." You can't explicitly limit what can and cannot be improved about the game without going against the entire spirit of GotM and Free Software. > 1) Ingo's is clearly of the view that he wants a fairly 'normal' > GoKart racing game. TuxKart is not intended to be that. Ingo's view is a proactive one. He's done sketches, and created 3D models based on those sketches. All of them have different karts. Maybe not wildly different, but until somebody helps or provides an alternative, and until he has them in what he considers a final state (he hasn't even textured them!?) then this is an unfair assertion. You have had ample opportunity to show us sketches and plans for what you need. "More like this game" is just not good enough if you want people to model your ideas. > His models (whilst very nice) are of essentially standard > go-karts and not the wilder designs of games like DoubleDash > and others of the 'krazy kart' genre. His are the only decent contributions thus far. > He's also expressed (in the Wikki section on tracks) that he > wants more normal tracks - shorter laps and a greater emphasis > on kart driving with less on the gadgets, powerups and collectibles > that are also the trademark of the genre I have in mind. Assert your authority. Ingo is not demanding or forcing the issue, just expressing a preference and opinion. Are we not allowed opinions? Or are we not allowed opinions that differ from yours? > 2) Changing the GUI entirely. Well, I can at least understand the > logic behind this (although I still disagree with it) - but I think > it's out of scope for the GoTM effort - it wasn't even mentioned > in the ToDo lists that people voted on. But - OK - those aren't > meant to chain us down. 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? > 3) Characters: Several people have argued to throw out all of the > existing characters (with the possible exception of Tux). Fine, > but unnecessary in my view. This too was not something that came > up in the "ToDo" list or the pre-vote discussions. Everybody has happily agreed to stick with Gown. You have to admit that BSOD and Geeky are hardly charismatic characters. It's ironic that you complain Ingo's karts are not "fun" enough yet you want possibly two of the most boring characters you could imagine to stick in the game. But, even then, from what I can see it's been accepted that they're staying with ideas being thrown around to make them more interesting. Somebody even did a new Geeky model. After expressing a severe dislike for the idea of using Mozilla, Ingo created a Mozilla model because _you_ mandated having Mozilla. > 4) Tracks: Do we intend to improve the existing tracks and add more, > or toss out all of them and make entirely new ones? I kinda get > the feeling from reading Wiki and peoples comments that the latter > is the basic intent. The current tracks suck. Sorry, they do. Yes, they could be improved upon, but that's the choice of whomever works on them. If somebody provides a lovely, fancy set of cool new tracks then are you going to reject them purely because they are not an evolution of the old tracks? You can only guide volunteers, not control them. You should be grateful for their contributions if said contributions are an improvement. Do not judge the GotM work before we have done some. We are not stupid people and will not force sub-standard content upon TuxKart. > If all of these things come to pass - along with the (very needed) AI > and physics changes - then there is NOTHING left of the original game. That's not true. The original artwork and 3d models are not the greatest and designed for computers as they were 4-5 years ago (few polys, limited textures). Part of the whole GotM TODO was to improve upon them (by updating them or replacing them). Other than the GUI, I fail to see what your gripe is. You wanted more characters and more tracks. People start the process of providing that and you are complaining that we are doing what you wanted - renewing and updating the artwork. Crazy! > You might as well leave TuxKart alone and write an entirely new game > from scratch. This is fine by me - but there is no chance in hell > you'll get it finished in two months. No, because we want to improve upon the codebase, not rewrite it from scratch. Just some nice new characters and tracks, some nice new gameplay features, and plausibly a GUI overhaul. And you're complaining about that? *shakes head* > IMHO, GoTM has to go back to the original ToDo list that was voted > on - and confine themselves to improving what's there rather than > tossing everything out and starting again. *sighs* Perhaps you should withdraw TuxKart from GotM because you don't want your precious work being improved in something that differs very, very slightly from the way in which you imagined. It's not like we're here to break the game, we're here to improve it. > One of GoTM's bullet items when choosing a game to work on is the > cooperation of the original author/maintainer. I can tell you that, > my cooperation level is plunging - you guys are doing a fine job > of pissing off the person who single-handedly got the game to the > point where people liked it enough to overwhelmingly vote for it. > > All of those people didn't vote for your private visions of the > game - because those visions were never expressed prior to the > vote. They voted to improve what they already saw and liked. We _are_ all those people. We _all_ voted. We _expressed_ our desires and visions prior to voting, and are continuing to evolve them. I honestly see no deviation from the forums in the conversations that have continued on the mailing list, other than you becoming weirdly hostile. Private visions... opinions... that's what GotM is all about. We're not slaves. We're not here to do your bidding. We all have ideas and imaginations and the whole concept of GotM is to utilize that consolidated creativity. You cannot control or limit it. If you wanted such fine grained control then wtf did you agree to GotM in the first place? You seem an intelligent guy. Did you really think we were a group of people who would just do what you told us? > Well, let's do exactly that - and not toss it all out and start > again from zero. Nobody said do that. We can't use the original karts as they're all the same and too simple. We're adding new characters that the group all liked. I'm sure people will use the existing tracks as a base for building both improved tracks and new ones. The GUI... well, just let other people come up with something before deciding that everybody but you is wrong. -- - Charlie Charles Goodwin <ch...@ve...> Online @ www.charlietech.com |
|
From: Steve B. <sjb...@ai...> - 2004-07-03 20:25:56
|
Charles Goodwin wrote: > Ingo's view is a proactive one. He's done sketches, and created 3D > models based on those sketches. All of them have different karts. > Maybe not wildly different, but until somebody helps or provides an > alternative, and until he has them in what he considers a final state > (he hasn't even textured them!?) then this is an unfair assertion. 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 keep explaining this - and all I'm seeing are karts that (when seen at actual game resolutions, speeds and distances) look pretty similar. Things will only get worse as we add effects like dust and smoke to obscure them further. 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. 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. > You have had ample opportunity to show us sketches and plans for what > you need. "More like this game" is just not good enough if you want > people to model your ideas. I'm not an artist - I don't make good 3D models - I'm a programmer. However, that doesn't mean I don't know how the game needs to look. Whilst I may not be able to sketch or model the kind of thing I have in mind, I can point to other things (as I've done repeatedly) and say "I think we need something more like this." - if I could actually DO the 3D modelling, TuxKart would have the models I would like to see and we wouldn't be having this conversation. > His are the only decent contributions thus far. (Actually, my son contributed that BSOD kart earlier as a 'sketch' for something a bit more interesting). 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. > Assert your authority. 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). > Ingo is not demanding or forcing the issue, just > expressing a preference and opinion. Are we not allowed opinions? Or > are we not allowed opinions that differ from yours? Of course people should express opinions...isn't that what I just did? What concerns me it that the general thrust is 180 degrees away from the general direction that TuxKart is intended to take. Without some sort of common 'direction', we'll pull in opposite directions and make no progress. > 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. > 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. > You have to admit that > BSOD and Geeky are hardly charismatic characters. I already agreed that Geeko has to go. I disagree about BSOD - but OTOH, I don't see how an ice-cube is any better! So, dumping BSOD and using the stupid ice-cube is *CLEARLY* change for change's sake. It subtracts interest rather than adding to it. Some of the new characters are very good. I love Sushi the Octopus and Mozilla is coming along OK too. > The current tracks suck. Sorry, they do. Yes, they could be improved > upon, but that's the choice of whomever works on them. If somebody > provides a lovely, fancy set of cool new tracks then are you going to > reject them purely because they are not an evolution of the old tracks? 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. > You can only guide volunteers, not control them. You should be grateful > for their contributions if said contributions are an improvement. Do > not judge the GotM work before we have done some. We are not stupid > people and will not force sub-standard content upon TuxKart. 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 - towards a very basic go-kart simulation with animals driving the karts instead of humans. > Perhaps you should withdraw TuxKart from GotM because you don't want > your precious work being improved in something that differs very, very > slightly from the way in which you imagined. It's not like we're here > to break the game, we're here to improve it. I have been very careful to say that I'm happy to have things improved upon, more characters, more tracks. What disturbs me is major changes in direction and in the fundamental character of the game. > We _are_ all those people. No - you aren't. 44 people voted for TuxKart. 20 people joined the mailing list. 4 became developers. Those 4 people are less than 10% of the people who voted. > I honestly see no deviation from the forums in the conversations that have > continued on the mailing list, other than you becoming weirdly hostile. There was NO discussion of taming the game down and turning it into a regular gokart game. 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. I did not expect a major turn of direction - or such major redesign of the parts of the game (like the GUI) that work just fine - or which could be evolved at some later time. If I had some kind of mystical authority here, I would be directing people as follows: * 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. * 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. * 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. * We need programming effort on special effects, animation, AI and Physics - NOT GUI. That's what (IMHO) was expected at the outset when those 44 people voted for TuxKar as the GoTM. ---------------------------- Steve Baker ------------------------- HomeEmail: <sjb...@ai...> WorkEmail: <sj...@li...> HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ UL+++$ P--- L++++$ E--- W+++ N o+ K? w--- !O M- V-- PS++ PE- Y-- PGP-- t+ 5 X R+++ tv b++ DI++ D G+ e++ h--(-) r+++ y++++ -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- |
|
From: Charles G. <ch...@ve...> - 2004-07-03 22:58:32
|
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 |
|
From: Flash <fl...@da...> - 2004-07-03 23:54:16
|
Ok now for my comments, im not much of a developer (but I do my best to learn and help) im not much of a 3d artist either, but I have good ideas and try to help in that matter and yes, im one of the people that joined the mailinglist, wiki and am active on irc. >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. We are talking about tuxKart here, it's a Kart game, it isn't wacky racers nor is it any other movie it's a Kart game so its only normal to have some type of karts in the game whatever they look like my view is it have to be karts of some type. >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 have played tuxkart and there are 4 exactly the same karts in the game now, just with different colours. If you wanted to have them look different why not make them different in your own game already. If you look at the (rather nice) karts that were made when they are textured you will see you have different looking karts (yes they REALLY look different from behind (even in further distance)) exactly what you want. >I'm not an artist - I don't make good 3D models - I'm a programmer. >However, that doesn't mean I don't know how the game needs to look. >Whilst I may not be able to sketch or model the kind of thing I have >in mind, I can point to other things (as I've done repeatedly) and >say "I think we need something more like this." - if I could actually >DO the 3D modelling, TuxKart would have the models I would like to >see and we wouldn't be having this conversation. So leave the artists at work and see what they come up with, so far I think they (he, ingo) has done great work and if you can only take up the effort to wait for a full set of textured characters im sure youll agree that they are just fine. >I already agreed that Geeko has to go. I disagree about BSOD - but OTOH, >I don't see how an ice-cube is any better! So, dumping BSOD and using >the stupid ice-cube is *CLEARLY* change for change's sake. It subtracts >interest rather than adding to it. >Some of the new characters are very good. I love Sushi the Octopus and >Mozilla is coming along OK too. Your right about ice-cube, its not one of my favorites either, but there are enough characters to pick from. You only need 4 for a race, and maybe 6 to 8 to pick from in the character screen. In the end well probably end up with a few more so everyone can pick the bests ones to come up with a nice total. >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. Do think your right about that, we should keep the current tracks, maybe make them look a bit nicer and add a bunch of tracks to the current list. I don't agree with trowing them all out, or trowing any out just before there are more tracks to pick from. >> We _are_ all those people. > No - you aren't. >44 people voted for TuxKart. 20 people joined the mailing list. 4 became >developers. Those 4 people are less than 10% of the people who voted. Make that 5 :P >There was NO discussion of taming the game down and turning it into a >regular >gokart game. It isn't going to be a 'regular' kart game, the current game extents a bit in the way of Mario kart or wacky wheels, the game that will be the end result will be exactly the same. You are trying to get a game that's like wacky races, but that is NOT a kart game in any way. Than why not rename the project to tuxraces or so right away. >* 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. Said my part on this.. >* 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. This was the plan wasn't it. We just need someone to build some tracks with nice themes and maybe model them even. Will take some time but im sure this will work out just fine. >* 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. I agree on this, im sure that was the aim of the project to. Nobody ment it to be a regulair racing game. The weapons and stuff are just part of the 'fun' part of this game. > * We need programming effort on special effects, animation, AI and > Physics - NOT GUI. If someone likes to work on the gui, why not let him. If that person wants to do something else, why not let him do that to if it works out fine it works out fine and everybodys happy, if not.. you got a gui so stick with it. >That's what (IMHO) was expected at the outset when those 44 people >voted for TuxKar as the GoTM. That was what you expected, not the 'aim' of GoTM. |
|
From: Ingo R. <gr...@gm...> - 2004-07-03 22:58:13
|
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 |
|
From: Charles G. <ch...@ve...> - 2004-07-03 23:53:41
|
On Sun, 2004-07-04 at 00:58 +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote: > 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. Actually, I happen to agree 100% with Steve on this. 90% of the time you are viewing the karts from behind. 99% of the time, you're viewing part of the back of the karts. It is the most important view. > 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. Agreed, the game is about gameplay. Steve was OTT in his harshness. > 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. ROFLMAO. Tux with tits really isn't good. But 'gown' as a concept is something everybody is happy with. Her look needs to be a bit more, um, nice. > > 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. I think we should just dump 'em both. They're both boring. But that's my opinion. ;) I don't see what the character fuss is all about. We should just draw up a list of what characters are proposed and then let the group decide. Yes, I know I said I'd do that list a few nights ago. I will... soon. > > - 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. Karts with animals vs. karts with geeko and BSOD. It's hardly a difficult choice to make. > > There was NO discussion of taming the game down and turning it into > > a regular gokart game. It already is a regular gokart game. I thought this GotM was about making it a special, fun gokart game. -- - Charlie Charles Goodwin <ch...@ve...> Online @ www.charlietech.com |
|
From: Ingo R. <gr...@gm...> - 2004-07-04 00:28:06
|
Charles Goodwin <ch...@ve...> writes: > Actually, I happen to agree 100% with Steve on this. 90% of the time > you are viewing the karts from behind. 99% of the time, you're > viewing part of the back of the karts. It is the most important > view. Yes, its important, however making them to wild or animated would distract from the driving. Beside that its a kart, so it should look more or less like a kart, nothing wrong with adding a few bells and whistles, but one shouldn't forget thats its about driving, not about watching vehicles from behind. If the gadgets on the kart start obscuring the view on the track one certainly needs to reduce them. As said lots and lots of games had vehicles that weren't especially interesting to watch from behind, yet I havn't heart a single person ever complaining about that. -- WWW: http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/ JabberID: gr...@ja... ICQ: 59461927 |
|
From: Charles G. <ch...@ve...> - 2004-07-04 00:45:41
|
On Sun, 2004-07-04 at 02:27 +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote: > > Actually, I happen to agree 100% with Steve on this. 90% of the time > > you are viewing the karts from behind. 99% of the time, you're > > viewing part of the back of the karts. It is the most important > > view. > > Yes, its important, however making them to wild or animated would > distract from the driving. Beside that its a kart, so it should look > more or less like a kart, nothing wrong with adding a few bells and > whistles, but one shouldn't forget thats its about driving, not about > watching vehicles from behind. If the gadgets on the kart start > obscuring the view on the track one certainly needs to reduce them. I actually thought your karts were looking pretty dandy and varied from behind anyway, and look forward to seeing the finished articles. But, yes, I agree. This is TuxKART, not TuxKARNIVAL. The karts have to be somewhat kartlike, don't they? -- - Charlie Charles Goodwin <ch...@ve...> Online @ www.charlietech.com |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X