Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 14, 2017, 08:30:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Subscribe! | Shop: Amazon

***DONATION DRIVE 2 HAS BEGUN:
CLICK HERE TO BURN MONEY***
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  Gaming Conferences and Conventions  |  AGC '06  |  Topic: AGC Rivebrog: The Future of Virtual Worlds 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: AGC Rivebrog: The Future of Virtual Worlds  (Read 24878 times)
schild
Administrator
Posts: 55839


WWW
Reply #35 on: September 13, 2006, 12:13:41 AM

Youtubes new interface isn't so hot. Not minimalistic enough.

Edit: Also, agree with Yoru. Neat Shit.
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335


Reply #36 on: September 13, 2006, 12:31:36 AM

But a "3D web" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 3D is good for object visualization, which is not what the web is about at all.

I don't agree.

Are we agreeing or disagreeing?

I said that most information was 2d images and text and that 3D was good for object visualization, and you countered with an elaborate niche application that is visualization and requires an involved setup.

I'm not saying "KEEP YOUR DAMN 3D OFF MY WEB!" 3D has a valuable place. I love 3D. (I have a Masters in 3D graphics) My point is that if you go to a typical website very little of that content makes sense to be in 3D.

3D message boards? What's the point? A 3D espn.com? msnbc.com? slashdot? Few sites would benefit from sort of mass conversion to 3D because most data we have is 2D.

The fact that you can composite a bunch of photos into a 3d scene is cool, but how many websites prominently feature a large number of photos of the same scene from different angles, or would want to?

3D is good for looking at stuff, not for reading stuff. And most information is in written form. The written form does not benefit from 3D presentation.

I fully expect that over time 3D will be more integrated into places it makes sense - 3D models in online stores for examples. What I don't see is what 3D has to offer a site like CNN.com, other than in small-scoped niche applications.

vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
Krakrok
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2145


WWW
Reply #37 on: September 13, 2006, 01:16:50 AM

What's the point?

That kind of question is as incomprehensible to me as 'Why would anyone need more than 640k?' or 'What does anyone need more than 3ghz for?'.

Quote
I fully expect that over time 3D will be more integrated into places it makes sense

Which is fine but right now there is no good integration option to do that. I'd rather have the 3D option available and see what people do with it than NOT have it available because 'what's the point?'.

Slyfeind
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2037


Reply #38 on: September 13, 2006, 04:49:28 AM

What's the point?

That kind of question is as incomprehensible to me as 'Why would anyone need more than 640k?' or 'What does anyone need more than 3ghz for?'.

When you add more memory, proc, whatever to your computer, you make it faster. If you added a 3D client to most of the web, you make it slower.

Personally, I use MySpace as an e-mail client. I click on the mail, I click on the bulletins, I click on comments...etc. If you make that 3D, then I have to wait for the java to load, then wait for the graphics to load, then walk painfully slow up a spiral staircase then say the magic word to open the rusty iron double-doors to read my mail. Comments? Oh boy, I have to close the door, then walk back down the stairs, then down the hall, and open each door to read each comment.

And holy crap, god have mercy on me if I want to reply to someone.

That's an exageration of course. You could make it as quick as you wanted. But any amount of 3D environment is going to be slower than the click-and-read we have now.

Quote
Which is fine but right now there is no good integration option to do that. I'd rather have the 3D option available and see what people do with it than NOT have it available because 'what's the point?'.

To be sure. I'd love to see people experiment with 3D web sites. Virtual shopping might be kind of fun. I wouldn't use it, because when I want to buy a book, I go to Amazon and click "Quick Buy!" I don't want to try to find it on a virtual shelf. I want my damn book and I want it NOW dagnabit! If I wanted to browse through the aisles, I would get off my lazy butt and go to the bookstore. (But the outside world scares me, which is why I shop online.)

And actually...when you put it that way, I would like to see an optional 3D client for MySpace, if only to see how many people use it, and for how long.

"Role playing in an MMO is more like an open orchestra with no conductor, anyone of any skill level can walk in at any time, and everyone brings their own instrument and plays whatever song they want.  Then toss PvP into the mix and things REALLY get ugly!" -Count Nerfedalot
WindupAtheist
Army of One
Posts: 7028

Badicalthon


Reply #39 on: September 13, 2006, 09:24:33 AM

But a "3D web" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 3D is good for object visualization, which is not what the web is about at all.

I don't agree.

Oh look, an application for object visualization, which would be screamingly irrelevant to 99.9% of all the content on the web.  rolleyes

That was unexpected.  Also, asking why SL + Myspace might be cool, but Myspace + SL probably wouldn't be?  "You thought it was neat when we put a TV set in your car!  Why are you crying now that I want to come into your living room and build a car around your TV set?  It's the same thing!"

"You're just a dick who quotes himself in his sig."  --  Schild
"Yeah, it's pretty awesome."  --  Me
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 38271

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #40 on: September 13, 2006, 10:24:13 AM

Not quite.

One is a 3D virtual space being inserted into a web community. To make it fit, it'd have to be browser-based, most likely. It's pretty much an accessory, since it doesn't fit into the original user interaction paradigm for MySpace.

The other is a 3D virtual space getting an web-like thingamajig added to it that should improve the social sphere of the application; I'm not sure whether you can already browse the web from within SL, or if this is an external, web-facing addon. If it's within SL, then it sort of fits within the existing SL UI paradigm. (I know Eve has an in-game browser, but it's not so hot.)

I know you can watch movies and videos inside Second Life as if your avatar is sitting in a theater. There are tons of virtual theters in SL you can pay some Linden to and watch your movies(pr0n) at your leisure, I think even downloading it to your computer.

Krakrok
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2145


WWW
Reply #41 on: September 14, 2006, 01:38:12 AM

If you added a 3D client to most of the web, you make it slower.

I don't agree. Theoretically a hardware rendered browser engine would be faster than current software API rendered browser engines.

Quote
If you make that 3D, then I have to wait for the java to load, then wait for the graphics to load, then walk painfully slow up a spiral staircase then say the magic word to open the rusty iron double-doors to read my mail. Comments? Oh boy, I have to close the door, then walk back down the stairs, then down the hall, and open each door to read each comment.

The point of an integrated 3D solution is that you wouldn't have to wait for java/activex/whatever to load. And again you're stuck in gamer mentality. Does EVE make you do that to read/write mail? No, so why even throw that out there as an exaggeration when current MMOs don't even do that. 'Walking' around in a 3D environment is a bullshit artifically constraint (as most MMO rules are).

Slyfeind
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2037


Reply #42 on: September 14, 2006, 02:49:09 AM

The point of an integrated 3D solution is that you wouldn't have to wait for java/activex/whatever to load. And again you're stuck in gamer mentality. Does EVE make you do that to read/write mail? No, so why even throw that out there as an exaggeration when current MMOs don't even do that. 'Walking' around in a 3D environment is a bullshit artifically constraint (as most MMO rules are).

I'm not exaggerating (well, not in the way you say). When people say they want to do a 3D MySpace, that's what it sounds like to me. Everybody would have their MySpace profile, but it would be an apartment that you walk around in, and open doors, and hang shit on the walls, and walk down the street to other peoples' profiles if you want to leave them messages. So yeah, I'm totally stuck in the gamer mentality here. I see nothing else that 3D can do besides adding those "bullshit artificial constraints." You could tone those constraints down to quickly flying from one profile to another, but it would still be slower than just clicking on a link.

Well, there's also that neato photo selection tool. Everybody would have to post their photos with that in mind, and that would take a while to catch on. I'm sure it would. I see very few practical applications for it, though. A few weeks ago, I wondered if the interior of the Sistine Chapel was really as awesome as people say it is. I Googled for images of it, and verily I was humbled and whatnot. If I could Google for a 3D environment of it, I would be totally blown away. That would rock. But that's the only application I can see for that.

What else can 3D do for us?

(Edit: clarified "exaggerating")
« Last Edit: September 14, 2006, 05:32:13 AM by Slyfeind »

"Role playing in an MMO is more like an open orchestra with no conductor, anyone of any skill level can walk in at any time, and everyone brings their own instrument and plays whatever song they want.  Then toss PvP into the mix and things REALLY get ugly!" -Count Nerfedalot
WindupAtheist
Army of One
Posts: 7028

Badicalthon


Reply #43 on: September 14, 2006, 05:29:06 AM

Anyone else find the conversation this AGC has instigated across several threads rather... underwhelming?  Okay, so everyone posts their photographs and this thing makes a virtual world out of it.  Then like, maybe some teenagers post whiny blogs with shitty background music into it.  And maybe some people make furry avatars and use it to cyber.  Hooray.  And you thought 50,000 identical Dikus was bad.

I'll quit living in the past (playing UO) when the future quits sucking so much.

"You're just a dick who quotes himself in his sig."  --  Schild
"Yeah, it's pretty awesome."  --  Me
Tahz
Terracotta Army
Posts: 44


Reply #44 on: September 14, 2006, 07:33:04 AM

Anyone else find the conversation this AGC has instigated across several threads rather... underwhelming?  Okay, so everyone posts their photographs and this thing makes a virtual world out of it.  Then like, maybe some teenagers post whiny blogs with shitty background music into it.  And maybe some people make furry avatars and use it to cyber.  Hooray.  And you thought 50,000 identical Dikus was bad.

I'll quit living in the past (playing UO) when the future quits sucking so much.

I do.  The only game I've bought this whole year was World of Warcraft, and I didn't even make it through my first month.  That was bad enough.

If the stuff talked about here is the only future of gaming beyond that, it may drive me out of gaming entirely.
Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #45 on: September 14, 2006, 08:59:04 AM

I'll quit living in the past (playing UO) when the future quits sucking so much.

I do.  The only game I've bought this whole year was World of Warcraft, and I didn't even make it through my first month.  That was bad enough.
If the stuff talked about here is the only future of gaming beyond that, it may drive me out of gaming entirely.

Part of being an educated consumer is being able to have realistic expectations.  I think we all recognize that there will never be "one game to rule them all" so being able to recognize the titles that can still provide you fun despite their flaws has become more critical, especially as the market continue to grow.

So, what is it that you consider most important in a future MMORPG? And don't say, "something that doesn't suck".  That's not helpful.  Sure, you know what you don't like, but what would actually appeal to you enough to shell out 15 a month?

Gaming is far too broad a genre to be driven out of.    Now matter how I slice it, when it comes to personal entertainment I still prefer gaming over tv, movies and reading (though with the NFL in season again TV has moved up :) .   To wit,  I've gotten less sleep then I wanted for about a week due to playing through HoMM V campaigns; bitten by the "just one more turn" bug.  There are good games out there.

Xilren

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Tahz
Terracotta Army
Posts: 44


Reply #46 on: September 14, 2006, 11:32:22 AM

The trouble with the phrase 'realistic expectations' is how far you're going to take it.  You can take any idea which doesn't yet exist in the real world and tell me 'It's not realistic to expect that.'  Nevertheless, I'll try to provide a short list of what sort of game would get my 15 dollars (or more) a month.

Must - have:

1.  A business and world model not dependent on out-of-game monetary exchanges, micropayments, ads, or RMT.  This is the part that's at least partly related to the original thread topic.   Pay $5 a month... or $10 for your Sword+1!  I know it's a money maker, but it's a deal breaker for me if the company sells items and characters.  That way lies Magic the Gathering - when it was brand new I thought the concept was great, but I quickly saw that game devolves into who spends the most money on cards.  You can be really good at deck construction and planning, but if the other guy spends 1000 bucks to get ridiculously powerful cards, there's not a lot you can do if you don't have equally uber shit.

2.  All items are commodities, and all items are destroyable.  There should be no usuable item that doesn't wear out, and no usuable item should be rare or dictate the power curve between players.  I would like it if a sword is just a sword.  There's no Sword+1, Sword+2, or Purple Sword of you-can't-touch-me-unless-you-also-have-a-Purple-Sword.  When I look at World of Warcraft, I looked back on the previous Blizzard games (the Diablos)  and realized that it really came down to whether you were blessed by the Gods of Random() giving you that uber drop.  I'd really like to do away with that entirely, and just let equipment be equipment.  In Counter Strike there's no special gun you get for playing for 200 hours that always gets headshots - your reward for playing more is (maybe) better tactical awareness and experience.  That's it.  You get the same equipment loadouts with their associated tradeoffs and fixed levels of power forever.  Taking that notion a bit further to the characters themselves, in early UO when you were a newb, you had about 40 HP (depending on Strength).  When you were maxed out, you had 100.  The power differential was much less than the thousand-fold difference in stats in Diku-style games.  This crosses over the realm of realistic expectations, I guess, but I think that a day-old newb should have a small chance at defeating a 10-year veteran, if the newb is very smart and the vet is very stupid.  Time invested, in and of itself, entitles you to jack shit.

I used to want a PvP paradise like '98-'99 UO had, but I left all that out, realizing that I stuck around (with grumbling) after Trammel, but I left promptly when Age of Shadows came around.  I do not want to play an item-based collector's game.  I want success in the game to be determined by tactical sophistication, situational awareness, and (optional) reaction time, and not levels and equipment.
bhodi
Moderator
Posts: 6817

No lie.


Reply #47 on: September 14, 2006, 12:16:11 PM

I like the AFK clause. If someone with an experienced character walks away from his computer for z minute, a new character should be able to kill him in that amount of time.
Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #48 on: September 14, 2006, 04:31:34 PM

The trouble with the phrase 'realistic expectations' is how far you're going to take it.  You can take any idea which doesn't yet exist in the real world and tell me 'It's not realistic to expect that.'  Nevertheless, I'll try to provide a short list of what sort of game would get my 15 dollars (or more) a month.

1.  A business and world model not dependent on out-of-game monetary exchanges, micropayments, ads, or RMT.  This is the part that's at least partly related to the original thread topic.   Pay $5 a month... or $10 for your Sword+1!  I know it's a money maker, but it's a deal breaker for me if the company sells items and characters.  That way lies Magic the Gathering -

Very true, but MtG has drafts and sealed which counter that argument.  Perhaps a game with similar optional play styles that dont emphasize the loot aquisition but still have it for the people who want it...

Quote
2.  All items are commodities, and all items are destroyable.  There should be no usuable item that doesn't wear out, and no usuable item should be rare or dictate the power curve between players.  I would like it if a sword is just a sword.  There's no Sword+1, Sword+2, or Purple Sword of you-can't-touch-me-unless-you-also-have-a-Purple-Sword.  The power differential was much less than the thousand-fold difference in stats in Diku-style games.  This crosses over the realm of realistic expectations, I guess, but I think that a day-old newb should have a small chance at defeating a 10-year veteran, if the newb is very smart and the vet is very stupid.  Time invested, in and of itself, entitles you to jack shit.

I do not want to play an item-based collector's game.  I want success in the game to be determined by tactical sophistication, situational awareness, and (optional) reaction time, and not levels and equipment.

Which means you are going to be seeking something other than a computer RPG for the forseeable future.  Like it or not, the time investment to skill up and/or get uber loot is a BIG part of customer retention in these games.  In many ways that IS the baseline expectation for a mmorpg among consumers and developers alike.  RPG have a foundation that a character/avatar/ship changes over time, and by far the most common change is improvement in something.

To a developer, what you just said is "give me a persistant quake with swords".  Is that really what you want?  And more importantly, what the hook to keep you playing (and paying) for a recurring monthly fee?

Xilren
« Last Edit: September 14, 2006, 05:06:59 PM by Xilren's Twin »

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Slyfeind
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2037


Reply #49 on: September 14, 2006, 05:03:26 PM

Heh. Sounds like a question Megyn of Corpnews was asked in an interview. "What do you like about games?"

Personally, I want Firaxis' Alpha Centauri Online, or something insanely similar to it. I want SWG and ATITD scale resources and crafting, with seven PvP factions, on an alien planet, and we have to colonize it all. No NPCs. Emergent content, even on the scale of SWG would be fine; I don't need quests. No preference if PvP combat is character-skill or player-skill. I like both.

So I don't want a men in tights DIKU, which means I'm in the minority. How sad. When Multiverse comes out, I shall make that game and make no money off it because everybody else wants men in tights DIKU, but dammit I'll be able to say my ideal game is out there! YAY!

"Role playing in an MMO is more like an open orchestra with no conductor, anyone of any skill level can walk in at any time, and everyone brings their own instrument and plays whatever song they want.  Then toss PvP into the mix and things REALLY get ugly!" -Count Nerfedalot
Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #50 on: September 14, 2006, 05:08:53 PM

Heh. Sounds like a question Megyn of Corpnews was asked in an interview. "What do you like about games?"

Personally, I want Firaxis' Alpha Centauri Online, or something insanely similar to it. I want SWG and ATITD scale resources and crafting, with seven PvP factions, on an alien planet, and we have to colonize it all. No NPCs. Emergent content, even on the scale of SWG would be fine; I don't need quests. No preference if PvP combat is character-skill or player-skill. I like both.

Just give it an end state where once a certain colonization level/ % world settle is reached, that planet is considerd a home world and the game end... to start right back up on a brand new world with different maps and factors (and even rules).  Sounds good to me.

Xilren

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Slyfeind
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2037


Reply #51 on: September 14, 2006, 05:14:58 PM

Just give it an end state where once a certain colonization level/ % world settle is reached, that planet is considerd a home world and the game end... to start right back up on a brand new world with different maps and factors (and even rules).  Sounds good to me.

I've thought about that. Or...players could find a way off their rock, by inventing interplanetary flight, and thus start over on a new world. And keep adding more and more worlds, and more and more servers, and more and more development expenses!!! (Or scale things down so 100 worlds could fit on one server, but that's not defeatist enough.)

"Role playing in an MMO is more like an open orchestra with no conductor, anyone of any skill level can walk in at any time, and everyone brings their own instrument and plays whatever song they want.  Then toss PvP into the mix and things REALLY get ugly!" -Count Nerfedalot
Tahz
Terracotta Army
Posts: 44


Reply #52 on: September 15, 2006, 07:27:41 AM


To a developer, what you just said is "give me a persistant quake with swords".  Is that really what you want?  And more importantly, what the hook to keep you playing (and paying) for a recurring monthly fee?


Yes, that is what I want.  In fact, when sitting around at a friend's house talking about this issue, we have certainly used that exact phrase "persistent Quake, with swords" at least once.  Whether that's viable or realistic is up to some development house.  For what it's worth, I'm glad that Counterstrike is free but if I had to, I would definitely be willing to pay a monthly fee to play it.

As for the hook, you can have other things besides your level and gear if you have a single persistent world.  Player-owned housing (and wealth in general) would be good.  Territorial control, status/rank, kill ratio, fame, and reputation are other ways to keep people. 

 
Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #53 on: September 15, 2006, 03:38:53 PM

Yes, that is what I want.  In fact, when sitting around at a friend's house talking about this issue, we have certainly used that exact phrase "persistent Quake, with swords" at least once.  Whether that's viable or realistic is up to some development house.  For what it's worth, I'm glad that Counterstrike is free but if I had to, I would definitely be willing to pay a monthly fee to play it.

As for the hook, you can have other things besides your level and gear if you have a single persistent world.  Player-owned housing (and wealth in general) would be good.  Territorial control, status/rank, kill ratio, fame, and reputation are other ways to keep people. 

Have you looked at the Dark Messiah Beta?

Might be right up your alley.

Xilren

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Tahz
Terracotta Army
Posts: 44


Reply #54 on: September 17, 2006, 03:25:42 PM

No I haven't seen it before.  I'm going to check that out.  Thanks.
Krakrok
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2145


WWW
Reply #55 on: September 17, 2006, 07:50:39 PM


Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  Gaming Conferences and Conventions  |  AGC '06  |  Topic: AGC Rivebrog: The Future of Virtual Worlds  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC