next »

[J-Snake]

Yeah, could formulate it better, that's right. But it won't change the topic at hand. Also the TrapThem-link shows a game in one of the best formats for clockwork-perfect mechanics, so it also presents a game-type where this quality is also required. One can think why not trying to keep this quality in non-grid-based games aswell?

[Blink]

If your post is not clockwork perfect, what makes you think your game is?

Just kidding! But no, I don't think there's such a thing as a "clockwork perfect" game. If there were, why would we play anything else? Personally, I even think games are more organic and artistic than mathematical or engineered. The engine might be worked out with exact physics replication, but gameplay and user interaction will always be so much more subjective to me. (hah! "subjective to me")

[J-Snake]

If your post is not clockwork perfect, what makes you think your game is?

Hehe, dedication, that is the difference.

I don't think there's such a thing as a "clockwork perfect" game.

The game itself can be. You are right about your personal input-interaction. And I think that is why most don't share the same outlook. I am personally all about sports, I want my game to have a sportive layer in it. And with sports comes fairness/competitive play, and that ideally implies clockwork-perfection. It can make a noticeable difference when borderline cases accumulate if the game is not clockwork-perfect. TrapThem for example is instantly flawed when I simply switch the mechanical execution from integers to floats, because it has many borderline-cases which decide all or nothing. So the game will behave significantly different unless it is clockwork-perfect. For example if you have an enemy with the same speed as yours chasing you and only lagging one frame behind you can be sure he will never get you as long as you keep moving away. As a sportive player you want to be sure about this quality. However most games won't keep that quality, it can happen that you get caught.

I believe that in total playing a clockwork-perfect game will make a difference, even in shooters. The way it stands now is that for example there might be some borderline jumps you got used to which work in one place but not in another despite same geometry constellations. I want it to be as relyable as a board-game, only mapped to be executed in real-time.
 
For some games though some people might like unpredictable mechanics with fluctuations in them, simply because of the experience. I guess video-games are the realm of religion sometimes but I stick to my qualities whenever possible.

[rivon]

I honestly think that you are just wasting time on making clockwork-perfect game because seriously noone gives a shit. It's either fun or it's boring. Floating-point error will not change that. Quake 3 uses floats and it's the greatest multiplayer FPS of all time. As long as bridge2rail works it's ok

[J-Snake]

In TrapThem clockwork-perfection is absolutely necessary. There are even challenges where you have to perform actions without losing a single frame(action-level: "lose no frame"), just to show that it is possible to perform at this quality. May be you are right I shouldn't exxagerate when it comes to 3D games representing continuous space since small fluctuations in happening feel natural.

Quake 3 can be raped for jackassing around. I don't think it is healthy to call that a decent competitive skill. If you look at its pro scene there were complaints that not all of the tight platform-jumps worked for everyone. One major factor is that the game runs in variable step, best for responsiveness but worst for solid mechanics. It means for example a player with lower fps can perform higher jumps since the linear intervalls between the updates last longer, and the calculations get less often quantized to the next possble machine-digit. Depending on the implementation it can also be the other way round, but knowing id they stick to the simplest possible things whenever possible.

So if the value of the game is just jumping around and having casual fun then that's ok.
If the desire is to map mechanics to the computer for eternal perfection then I have to follow my principle. For me it is like releasing a chess games where the horse can jump 3 or 4 cells at times, not perfectly sticking to the designed mechanics. I just don't want that even when the effect is less visible in video-games. I see what is possible and try to make feasable decisions.

[Fallsburg]

Well, not to derail this thread even more, but I'm going to derail this thread even more:

There are even challenges where you have to perform actions without losing a single frame

That sounds like some Ulillillia level pedantry, and not like a game that any human being would ever want to play.

[nikki]

I think I get why you would want the clockwork, frame perfect game in that Trapthem video.

Most games would not have much problems checking for a collision in a grid in 1 frame though I would think though.

The problem I have with clockwork perfectiness, or well the thing I like about the opposite is this :

slightly buggy, wrong, ugly and off things feel more real to me and 'authored'.
where perfect clean tight stuff feels more corporate and without soul.

However I wouldn't want to feel cheated by collision checks that don't work or blatant errors in win conditions or something..  

[Graham-]

Well soul can be inserted in different ways.

[J-Snake]

and not like a game that any human being would ever want to play.

It is just one level to show what is possible, you can skip it. The game is designed for humans, not for robots.

[nikki]

Well soul can be inserted in different ways.

I think I disagree, I would think soul is there to begin with (or not at all)
the only thing you can do to it is brush it out by being to clean.
Maybe it can grow very slowly.

But I don't think you can just slap it on/insert it afterwards.

Or how would you do that then ?
 

[J-Snake]

I think I get why you would want the clockwork, frame perfect game in that Trapthem video.

Most games would not have much problems checking for a collision in a grid in 1 frame though I would think though.

It is because you can execute exactly to your plan, it is the best things the player can be offered. A grid-based game potentially tends to offer more often yes or no decisions since you only move on a grid. So the results have to be perfeclty relyable.

[Graham-]

@ nikki

Random variety isn't needed for soul. You can have "perfect mechanics" and express your humanity through them, by design.

I agree soul needs to be there from the beginning though.

[J-Snake]

While the mechanics are deterministic doesn't imply the game has to be. The decision making in game can vary. For example how an actor decides to act is entirely up to his design, does he want to kill you, does he want to approach you kindly etc. Perfect mechanics only perfectly determine his limitations and abilities.

When I think about soul because of glitches Gothic2 jumps straight to the head. But it is not necessary to provide this kind of soul. It is just a subjective cherry on top for me since it at least makes up for the lack of solid mechanics a bit. I would still prefer decent mechanics instead, the game offers enough charm through the music, environment and the npc-interactions.

[J-Snake]

I am also a fan or releasing frame-data. TrapThem is designed without the need of this knowledge. Frame-data allows the player to understand the mechanics on a level so that the player could replicate the exact same game. It is like exactly understanding how chess-rules work, that way he can dive deeper into the game and can be perfeclty sure about how his plans are going to work out, he can also design solid levels based on that knowledge. This level of exitement and understanding is like first nature in a board-game. For some reason hardly anyone associates it with video-games because of the illusion video-games are about reality simulations. Video-games can still be games, not all of them are reality simulators. In case TrapThem gets popular it is a very beneficial thing to release frame-data to the community. I wish it would also be a native habit in the fighter-scene.

[rivon]

Quake 3 can be raped for jackassing around. I don't think it is healthy to call that a decent competitive skill. If you look at its pro scene there were complaints that not all of the tight platform-jumps worked for everyone. One major factor is that the game runs in variable step, best for responsiveness but worst for solid mechanics. It means for example a player with lower fps can perform higher jumps since the linear intervalls between the updates last longer, and the calculations get less often quantized to the next possble machine-digit. Depending on the implementation it can also be the other way round, but knowing id they stick to the simplest possible things whenever possible.

Doesn't the simulation happen on server? I thought that the client simulates the game too, but the server has the final word.

[J-Snake]

Even when the server manages to form a uniform environment for everyone, the game would play differently for you each time you change the server. That would be the downside.

[Sharkoss]

I honestly think that you are just wasting time on making clockwork-perfect game because seriously noone gives a shit. It's either fun or it's boring. Floating-point error will not change that. Quake 3 uses floats and it's the greatest multiplayer FPS of all time. As long as bridge2rail works it's ok

Quake 3 is not the greatest multiplayer FPS of all time.  It has really dull gameplay design.  Like a game of Chess where all the pieces are rooks and bishops.  Yuck.

[rivon]

Have you even played it? Have you watched any pro duel?

[Sharkoss]

God, shut up.

(Yes to both questions - but shuuuuut uuuuuup).

[rivon]

God, shut up.

Yeah, great argument.

Can't you even describe what is wrong with it according to you?