AOC - State of the Game: February 2008

[Mrbloodworth]

Big differences between science-fiction, science-fantasy, and medieval-fantasy, and high-fantasy (and steampunk, lol).

Most of it has to do with the amount of REAL world grounding/basis.

Like i said before, i think fantasy is simply easer to produce, as science fiction needs a level of reality to base its technologies on, and real world design that you can easily omit in fantasy.

[Murgos]

Forget Star Wars.  I knew it was a bad example about 15 seconds after I posted it because some dork was going to pull the old, "It's actually fantasy in a future setting."  Whatever that means.

The point was that the realm of Sci Fi is as equally unbounded as the realm of Fantasy.  Actually, I think Fantasy is more bound by convention than Sci-Fi is, to the point where it is much more limited a genre for story telling purposes.

[Mrbloodworth]

Forget Star Wars.  I knew it was a bad example about 15 seconds after I posted it because some dork was going to pull the old, "It's actually fantasy in a future setting."  Whatever that means.

The point was that the realm of Sci Fi is as equally unbounded as the realm of Fantasy.  Actually, I think Fantasy is more bound by convention than Sci-Fi is, to the point where it is much more limited a genre for story telling purposes.

Ok. Example:

There is a floating city, the questions is, "How is it floating".

medieval-fantasy, and high-fantasy would explain it as "Magic".

science-fantasy would explain it as an engine (science) powered by bottled dragons breath (magic).

science-fiction would explain it as an engine, powered by a solid fuel source, or other (Dilithium crystals and antimatter creating force) that is simply 1k times more effective than what we currently have.

That was just the first part of my point. Now, from a production side of it. The DESIGN of the various "Explanations" now need to be created. At the top, the easiest is the medieval, and high fantasy. Its magic, it can look like what ever they want it to, it does not have to make one lick of real world sense. The science-fantasy would have to incorporate what we humans are accustomed to seeing, such as pipes, gears and the like...Something that Design wise, looks feasibly mechanical, and with shapes and functions we can relate to in our modern world (But that can be stretched a bit before entering "wholly Not believable" realm)...and of course huge vats of dragons breath bottles and the like (Dash-o-Magic). science-fiction would have to Barrow heavily from DESIGN, look near functional, and feasible. It will barrow heavily from real world sciences and sometimes even be backed by Designers, architects, engineers and the like. Creating an overhead in the creation, lore, and artwork of the object.

Thats my take on it anyway. Its simply easer to do straight fantasy. Your right however, Most (Tolken/DnD) Fantasy is bound by convention. There is also something to be said about player/people being able to relate/accept it. Alot of Si-fi goes way out there, and becomes something not easily digestible by the viewer.

[Murgos]

I disagree entirely.  Any Sci-Fi structure can look like whatever you want.  There is no limit and it doesn't have to look 'functional'.

And it's borrow.  A barrow is a tomb.

[tazelbain]

Science Fiction has a tone realism that Stars Wars lacks.

[K9]

Why is it so hard to do modern-day magic in an RPG, or cyberpunk/magic. Final Fantasy games manage to pull it off remarkably well, with some of the best gameworlds around; yet I'm stretched to think of many western RPGs that do the same. Seems like an untapped resource to me.

[tmp]

Science Fiction has a tone realism that Stars Wars lacks.

Wouldn't that be because Star Wars is space opera and so focuses more on larger than life characters and drama rather than the tech bits..?

[Murgos]

Science Fiction has a tone realism that Stars Wars lacks.

Once you have the ability to make something trivially then what it looks like is an aesthetic decision left to the constructors.  Using the 'sky city' example if gravitation and building material strengths are a trivial concern then if I want my sky city to look like giant plastic pink lawn flamingos all dipping their heads into a pool of water while their feathers each and individually travel the visible light spectrum in patterns that occasionally coalesce into images of popular 20th century sit com actresses I can do that.

The conventions of Fantasy, however, pretty much reduce the chance of a writer being able to incorporate that design into a Fantasy themed 'world' to pretty much nil.  But a Sci-Fi author can always make his floating city look like 400bc Athens or even The Shire from LOTR if he wants to excuse the residents as history buffs or fans of english fiction.

[Lantyssa]

Ok. Example:

There is a floating city, the questions is, "How is it floating".

medieval-fantasy, and high-fantasy would explain it as "Magic".

science-fantasy would explain it as an engine (science) powered by bottled dragons breath (magic).

science-fiction would explain it as an engine, powered by a solid fuel source, or other (Dilithium crystals and antimatter creating force) that is simply 1k times more effective than what we currently have.

Only Star Trek technobabble has to explain it like this.

A good writer knows it is not necessary to say how it works regardless of the genre, and is often counterproductive.  In Laputa and Battle Angel Alita (first examples that popped into my head), the floating cities are never explained beyond being giant floating cities.  It's just the way it is and the why of it is not important.

Don't confuse specific occurances of how things were done with how entire genres need to be written.  (Even my fantasy race example was mocking this.  A good fantasy can have fantastic races, too.  Or only one race.)

[Mrbloodworth]

Ok. Example:

There is a floating city, the questions is, "How is it floating".

medieval-fantasy, and high-fantasy would explain it as "Magic".

science-fantasy would explain it as an engine (science) powered by bottled dragons breath (magic).

science-fiction would explain it as an engine, powered by a solid fuel source, or other (Dilithium crystals and antimatter creating force) that is simply 1k times more effective than what we currently have.

Only Star Trek technobabble has to explain it like this.

A good writer knows it is not necessary to say how it works regardless of the genre, and is often counterproductive.  In Laputa and Battle Angel Alita (first examples that popped into my head), the floating cities are never explained beyond being giant floating cities.  It's just the way it is and the why of it is not important.

Don't confuse specific occurances of how things were done with how entire genres need to be written.  (Even my fantasy race example was mocking this.  A good fantasy can have fantastic races, too.  Or only one race.)

But when you looked at one of those city's, the mechanisms was apparent your brain accepted them, and they fell into one of the examples, and was acceptable for the genre it was in.

I think visually. Not much of what i wrote has anything to do with things like dialog, script, or the like. With spelling and grammar like mine, i wouldn't even dream of trying to talk about such things.

@Murgos - Si-Fi = Science Fiction. Science-fiction isn't the same as science-fantasy, your castle would fall under that category. Yes, i follow some of the more literal definitions, but i have to.

Going to steal a quote from that page, as it gets across what i am saying better than i can apparently.

Rod Serling said that "science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible."

[tazelbain]

Science Fiction has a tone realism that Stars Wars lacks.

Wouldn't that be because Star Wars is space opera and so focuses more on larger than life characters and drama rather than the tech bits..?

What the author chooses to focus on is what the genre is.  BSG has both of those things, but its always within a realistic treatment of an imaginary world.

[tmp]

What the author chooses to focus on is what the genre is.  BSG has both of those things, but its always within a realistic treatment of an imaginary world.

Ahh that's rather debatable i think -- BSG had its own share of convenient devices that were no less 'magic'* in function than Star Wars technology.

*) "any technology advanced enough..." etc.

[Typhon]

This current derail is even more demented than most on f13.  This is the CONAN thread.

[Lantyssa]

But when you looked at one of those city's, the mechanisms was apparent your brain accepted them, and they fell into one of the examples, and was acceptable for the genre it was in.

Floating roots are an obvious sci-fi mechanism?

I wonder what it's attached to?  Dunno, it never says.

Just because you expect it does not mean it is required.

On the converse, the Conan game will have ubiquitous magic even though my impression of the source material is that it is a pretty low magic world.  Why is that?  Because people expect magic in a fantasy game, even though there is nothing to require its presence.  Kind of like sci-fi and explainations.

[Velorath]

On the converse, the Conan game will have ubiquitous magic even though my impression of the source material is that it is a pretty low magic world. 

It's a low magic world for the most part (you generally wouldn't see people just walking around town casting spells), but Conan himself does have a knack for running into magic and supernatural threats.

[Johny Cee]

Ah, the scifi vs. fantasy debate.

I think a good general rule is:  Scifi implicitly deals with societies and societal mores,  where as fantasy implicitly deals with individual choice and morality.

Outside of "hard" scifi (your golden age authors, Kim Robinson, etc.),  the breakdown between the scifi and fantasy genres is mostly at what level the author engages in the handwaving or technobabble to make his or her world work.


As for realism....  I've always found an author like Glen Cook (or Martin, etc.) to have far more of a realist bent despite an obviously fantastic world than your traditional utopian or dystopian scifi author.  Fuck,  the sheer ignorance and mistakes of most scifi authors in regards to sociology, economics, and political science make them de facto fantasy writers.

[UnSub]

This current derail is even more demented than most on f13.  This is the CONAN thread.

As soon as something worth mentioning happens around AoC, I'm sure we'll get back to talking about it.

[rk47]

  the moment Margalis said something about sci-fi being 'humanoids, different humanoids with different guns' I know we're in for a 

[Murgos]

@Murgos - Si-Fi = Science Fiction. Science-fiction isn't the same as science-fantasy, your castle would fall under that category. Yes, i follow some of the more literal definitions, but i have to.

Pointless conversation.  You're drawing arbitrary lines between things that don't exist saying, 'thus and not thus' subjectively.  Good luck with that.

Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and case) is a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology.

Science fantasy is a mixed genre of story which contains some science fiction and some fantasy elements. Science fantasy is therefore even more elusive of definition

Dude, I mean, seriously, you "have to follow more literal definitions"?  WTF does that mean?  More literal than broad and elusive?  Well, that shouldn't be hard.

edit:  BBcode hard and whatnot.

[Mrbloodworth]

Nice AOC Video showing a good portion of the combat.

[Signe]

Damn.  Couldn't make it past the advert.

[Evildrider]

Is it me, but after watching that video, I still don't see this *active combat system*?  Maybe I'm just too spoiled by DDO's combat system, but AoC's just looks like a flashier version of WoW.  The only thing I really liked was the different weapon melee ranges.  All the blood and crap was more annoying then anything else. 

[Slayerik]

They re-did their website as well if anyone wants to check it out.

www.ageofconan.com :)

[SnakeCharmer]

Looks good.

 

[Numtini]

That is the most annoying website, just censor the thing to death so I can actually get to something rather than inputting my age constantly.

[Mrbloodworth]

That is the most annoying website, just censor the thing to death so I can actually get to something rather than inputting my age constantly.

Just click the British flag.

[Falconeer]

Is it me, but after watching that video, I still don't see this *active combat system*?

How come?
There is NO autoattack. You have to swing your weapon, every single time and in different directions. They say it clearly in the video.
Does everything with something resembling a hotbar reeks of WoW to you?

[Evildrider]

No but standing in one spot swinging does.. so there's no auto attack button.. woo....  I consider active to be more then what they are doing there.  I really didn't see them moving to flank.. the only thing they mention is attacking from behind.  Maybe I'm just used to moving most of the time while attacking.

[Ratman_tf]

How come?
There is NO autoattack. You have to swing your weapon, every single time and in different directions. They say it clearly in the video.
Does everything with something resembling a hotbar reeks of WoW to you?

When did autoattack go from a desired feature (Diablo-click-click-click) to a liability?

Shit. I better post something to be on topic... hmmm.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZHoHaAYHq8

[Falconeer]

You guys, you are never happy 

You have collision detection, you have to swing your weapon manually and you have multiple basic attacks (and I am not talking about specials) as in every 3rd person action game (but NO mmorpg that I know of), you have bonii if you attack the unguarded side of your enemies and you have to actively guard your sides too... still the game looks like a flashier version of WoW? Well, ok.

[Falconeer]

How come?
There is NO autoattack. You have to swing your weapon, every single time and in different directions. They say it clearly in the video.
Does everything with something resembling a hotbar reeks of WoW to you?

When did autoattack go from a desired feature (Diablo-click-click-click) to a liability?

What? I am not sure I am understanding you but while Evildrider thinks this is just a flashier WoW, you think it is a flashier Diablo?

[Evildrider]

I think what he's saying is that clicking to attack doesn't necessarily mean it's active combat.

[Nerf]

If you're "moving around alot" in DDO to fight you're a fucking idiot.  DDO's combat system is either spamming clicks while tripping,  or you took the awful "I can strafe and attack!" feats that totally gimped your character.  Also, DDO has autoattack, it works alot better than sitting there spamming clicks.

From what I've heard, this combat system is NOTHING like WoW, or any other MMORPG really.

[Falconeer]

There is no point in talking about this with a in place. I think that video, and what the devs say, shows some of the differences between AoC and WoW.
It's not like you are going to play Soul Calibur MMO, but to say it is a flashier WoW (which instead is a flashier EQ) would be an understatement.

The Diablo comment deserved to be ignored as I mentioned different attack directions but Ratman chose the smarty way regardless. I got distracted by its lack of a point.

[Evildrider]

If you're "moving around alot" in DDO to fight you're a fucking idiot.  DDO's combat system is either spamming clicks while tripping,  or you took the awful "I can strafe and attack!" feats that totally gimped your character.  Also, DDO has autoattack, it works alot better than sitting there spamming clicks.

From what I've heard, this combat system is NOTHING like WoW, or any other MMORPG really.

Huh?  If you think getting spring attack is gimping your character.. well.. I'm not even gonna go there.  I don't tend to stand in one spot and let spells get spammed on me, or I move position to always be behind or flank. 

Yes, there is an auto attack.. and it also attacks slower then actually clicking to attack.