Green Monster Games - Curt Schilling

G

Gaereth_foh

shitlord
0
0
The points a bit moot actually.

All of these games give out of range messages.....should they not do that either??

In the RL world, due to repetition, practice, etc, our mind works with our eyes and tells our arm how much ummmph to put behind the baseball to get to our target no matter where the target is.

In the games...our arm has a fixed distance that cannot be changed to toss something at a critter. There is no compensation for distance, perceived distance or anything else. The throw happens the same from min distance to max distance, you cannot change it. Also, the size of the creature could be different from one zone to another so you can"t rely on that unless you are talking about settings you have repeatedly engaged.

In many cases in the games a harmful effect is going out a certain radius and you have maybe a yard or 2 to stand outside of that effect and still be able to cast/shoot/throw whatever you are doing at the creature.

Its not very analogous to compare the 2 because in one we can adjust for distance, etc, etc while in the other we have a fixed range we have to work within. Having something that tells you that you are in range simply compensates for the fact that you can"t in fact compensate yourself for any range differences.....its a binary solution unlike RL.
 
N

Necrolyte_foh

shitlord
0
0
Gaereth said:
The points a bit moot actually.

All of these games give out of range messages.....should they not do that either??

In the RL world, due to repetition, practice, etc, our mind works with our eyes and tells our arm how much ummmph to put behind the baseball to get to our target no matter where the target is.

In the games...our arm has a fixed distance that cannot be changed to toss something at a critter. There is no compensation for distance, perceived distance or anything else. The throw happens the same from min distance to max distance, you cannot change it. Also, the size of the creature could be different from one zone to another so you can"t rely on that unless you are talking about settings you have repeatedly engaged.

In many cases in the games a harmful effect is going out a certain radius and you have maybe a yard or 2 to stand outside of that effect and still be able to cast/shoot/throw whatever you are doing at the creature.

Its not very analogous to compare the 2 because in one we can adjust for distance, etc, etc while in the other we have a fixed range we have to work within. Having something that tells you that you are in range simply compensates for the fact that you can"t in fact compensate yourself for any range differences.....its a binary solution unlike RL.
Click to expand...
In real life, you still have a fixed range to work with--it"s called your maximum distance. You can"t throw an infinite distance, and each person has a different maximum distance to work with. If a target is too far, you still have to adjust your position so that your maximum range fits within the target distance.

It"s perfectly analogous to compare the two. In game, everyone has the same maximum distance. That"s the only difference between the two. If you are well within the maximum range and throw a spell at a critter, isn"t your "in-game" arm compensating? Or are you saying the in-game character throws his fixed range still?
 
C

Cadrid_foh

shitlord
0
0
Today there wasan article on the front page of the Boston Globe"s Business sectionabout 38 Studios" upcoming project. We"ve heard pretty much all of it before, except for this little tidbit:

Boston Globe said:
A stroll through the company"s offices revealed hundreds of sketches of creatures who seem to have come from central casting in Middle Earth.The designers are currently planning for 12 species or "races" in the game, and while they may not be called elves or orcs or dragons, there"s certainly a family resemblance.
Click to expand...
So, Curt, is this accurate information, was there a mistake in the translation (I doubt most reporters are game-savvy to really understand what you showed them), or did they make that part up?
 
G

Gaereth_foh

shitlord
0
0
The game doesn"t care if you are max or min distance as long as you are within range. Thats it...its binary. A spell won"t hit you harder if you are closer, or be weaker if the caster is far away...its the same. It is simply in range or out of range.

If I throw a baseball at you from 5 feet away would it be different from one thrown 100 feet away??

But...that is besides the point.

The point is simply that if I take 5 people out to a park and have them go to a spot that they think is the max range that they can throw the ball to me and they do so and will probably be in very different spots but they will all be able to throw the ball to or towards me.

In game...if I ask 5 different people to do the same thing, with no range markers, it is possible that they all get in range and get the cast or item to me because the only thing that matters is being in range. But its also highly probable someone might be standing right outside of it and be unable to throw at all. The difference between the game and RL is in the fact that at a certain spot in game you cannot throw/cast/shoot, etc, etc yet if you move slightly you can.

Its not a hit miss thing, its an on/off thing. In the scenario where a skill can get turned off due to a difference of inches then range notifications of some kind are a good idea.
 
L

Lonin_foh

shitlord
0
0
Cadrid said:
Today there wasan article on the front page of the Boston Globe"s Business sectionabout 38 Studios" upcoming project. We"ve heard pretty much all of it before, except for this little tidbit:



So, Curt, is this accurate information, was there a mistake in the translation (I doubt most reporters are game-savvy to really understand what you showed them), or did they make that part up?
Click to expand...
Nice find, some clarification would be great. I also find it interesting that the reporter was specific enough to say that just plain "elves or orcs..." aren"t part of the races.
 
M

Maxxius_foh

shitlord
0
0
12 ingame races is alot. That presumes more than a few starting areas, hence high expectatons in subs, otherwise there may be alot of ghost towns.
 
M

Moorgard Mobhunter_foh

shitlord
0
0
Cadrid said:
So, Curt, is this accurate information, was there a mistake in the translation (I doubt most reporters are game-savvy to really understand what you showed them), or did they make that part up?
Click to expand...
The truth is that it"s way too early to draw conclusions about details like how many races we"ll have or how big our world will be. We"re still in the concept phase of our design, which means a lot of writing, planning, and concept sketches. We first need to quantify how long it takes to build a complete segment of our world before we give any details we feel reasonably sure of.

Of course we have certain numbers and scope in mind, but we"re years away from launch. Our design has enough flexibility to adapt to how our pipelines work in production so that our scope can either widen or narrow accordingly.

I personally feel that locking ourselves into a certain world size or number of races at this point has little value. Not to pick on anyone, but if a game like Vanguard would have narrowed its scope in terms of world size, races, and classes, it could have delivered a much more polished foundation to be expanded upon later. We don"t want to be painted into a corner at this early date.

That"s a longwinded way to respond to a yes/no question, I realize. It just so happens to be true that at this point, neither yes nor no would be a relevant answer.
 
T

Twobit_sl

shitlord
6
0
Well thank god you realize that. VG"s first and biggest mistake was saying "we will have X races in Y sq. km space" and not wavering until it was too late. Start small and get it right and then expand as much as possible until you have to launch. I guess that"s the Pardo Method, but damn if it doesn"t work.
 
C

Cadrid_foh

shitlord
0
0
Moorgard Mobhunter said:
That"s a longwinded way to respond to a yes/no question, I realize. It just so happens to be true that at this point, neither yes nor no would be a relevant answer.
Click to expand...
So there are 12 races that have been (initially) conceptualized, but whether or not you actually end upusing12 is still up in the air? I can dig that.

It"s still exciting to get a more concrete idea as to how far you guys have come already, no matter how early on it is in the process.
 
D

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
Moorgard Mobhunter said:
I personally feel that locking ourselves into a certain world size or number of races at this point has little value. Not to pick on anyone, but if a game like Vanguard would have narrowed its scope in terms of world size, races, and classes, it could have delivered a much more polished foundation to be expanded upon later. We don"t want to be painted into a corner at this early date.
Click to expand...
Best thing I"ve ever heard a dev say.
 
G

Gaereth_foh

shitlord
0
0
Well, having 12 races doesn"t mean they will use all of them in game or that players will be able to use all 12 to play as characters. And I do like that they are showing their team and their plans in a general way that tends to highlight their seriousness for a total package.

Honestly...it sounds like they have actually listened to all the bitching about the Vision and other assorted smoke up the ass things devs have been doing to us for years.
 
K

karuden_foh

shitlord
0
0
That"s a longwinded way to respond to a yes/no question, I realize. It just so happens to be true that at this point, neither yes nor no would be a relevant answer
Click to expand...
So just like you did in a previous "life" you are spinning things and will never give an honest answer.

Glad to see you haven"t changed since your days blowing smoke up our collective asses on EQ2.com.

Funny how those of us that didn"t belive your BS were proven correct and you were proven to be nothing but a spin meister catering to all the Fawn Bois.

Tells me all I need to know about 38 Studios and it"s "future" game.
 
S

spentmotiff_foh

shitlord
0
0
karuden said:
So just like you did in a previous "life" you are spinning things and will never give an honest answer.

Glad to see you haven"t changed since your days blowing smoke up our collective asses on EQ2.com.

Funny how those of us that didn"t belive your BS were proven correct and you were proven to be nothing but a spin meister catering to all the Fawn Bois.

Tells me all I need to know about 38 Studios and it"s "future" game.
Click to expand...
Wow...Moorgard got himself a fanboy.

God forgive a dev not be able to release every bit of information on a game still in early development, years away from release.

I mean, hell, if you are going to bash him, bash him for his comment about EQ2 not having an Auction house at release because the devs wanted players to "go out and kill for their gear. Heroes don"t buy their epic equipment on the Auction House."

But seriously, I kid, I kid.
 
G

Gaereth_foh

shitlord
0
0
Yeah...I would much rather read anything Ngruk posts than Moor posts.

The difference between someone just flat out telling you no, can"t do it and another spending 5 paragraphs to say the same thing really annoys me. Its like the damn moderators were trained by McQuaid at some point to spend as much time as possible saying as little as possible while appearing to say everything was possible.

Its the difference between someone telling it straight and someone acting like they are talking you off the roof, or talking to you slowly and carefully so you don"t snap and kill all the children.
 
V

Vatoreus Malfost_sl

shitlord
228
1
I think the thing is, you say no this early, and it changes people go "OMG LIAR" and the same thing with yes. Sometimes a definite maybe, but we have no clue is best. It"s ok when someone explains shit why it"s maybe, I have no trouble with that. It"s not insulting someone"s intelligence when they explain why the answer is the answer.
 
S

spentmotiff_foh

shitlord
0
0
Gaereth said:
Yeah...I would much rather read anything Ngruk posts than Moor posts.

The difference between someone just flat out telling you no, can"t do it and another spending 5 paragraphs to say the same thing really annoys me. Its like the damn moderators were trained by McQuaid at some point to spend as much time as possible saying as little as possible while appearing to say everything was possible.

Its the difference between someone telling it straight and someone acting like they are talking you off the roof, or talking to you slowly and carefully so you don"t snap and kill all the children.
Click to expand...
I honestly don"t see the problem with Moorgard"s post. He was basically saying "No, we aren"t going to release that information because it"s too soon and we"ve seen what happens when you over promise and under deliver."

Of course he was verbose about it: the dude was a blogger and then a Customer Liason guy with Sony. He probably lost the ability to write one or two sentence responses years ago.

I know that every one"s bum is hurt a bit from the Vanguard whitewashing, but I wouldn"t slam Moorgard and Co. yet for not wanting to be specific this early in development.

I mean, shit, it"s Moorgard. He"s going to say something you can jump all over eventually...it"s only a matter of time, so be patient with the hate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.