FO3 Unlimited

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
In my opinion, the biggest drawback to Fallout and Fallout 2 was its lack of replayability. After changing your character around, searching out all the different ways to complete the quests, and fereting out all the different endings you basically have nothing left to do with it.

If once FO3 were developed, Black Isle or Interplay, or whoever produces it, were to release developer tools (map designer, quest scripter, art editor and integration tools, and a fatie instruction set) it would eliminate one of my personal problems with the game.

Now-a-days, you have games like Half-life, Quake, Unreal, etc. (granted all FPS and not good comparisons), and they all have user-made levels and mods all over the internet. If Fallout had a similiar online compilation of user made levels and officially sanctioned add-ons, the game would never lose its originality, and would become a game in which i would never lose intrest.

My biggest request for FO3: a F all O ut C reation K it.
 
*sigh*

Ok.

Now to catch you up on about the last...two years of history of replies from BIS.

No, they are not going to release Mapper, nor are they going to release anything of the sort. The reason for this is because a map program just goes so far. The dialog trees and other scripting need to be hand-programmed. A construction kit isn't too feasable

Fallout Tactics: BOS will have a map editor (hopefully ON CD), but you will not be able to change the dialog options or anything of that sort. No scripted sequences either, if I remember correctly.

So....I don't think it'll be forthcoming.
 
RE: *sigh*

If FO3 is developed they should develop it with a new engine, one more suited to a constuction kit. i wasnt inferring they should release 1 for FO1 or FO2, simply that FO3 should be developed with a mapper and scripter in mind. i dont quite see the difficulties in this, maybe you should point some out
 
RE: *sigh*

>If FO3 is developed they should
>develop it with a new
>engine, one more suited to
>a constuction kit. i
>wasnt inferring they should release
>1 for FO1 or FO2,
>simply that FO3 should be
>developed with a mapper and
>scripter in mind. i
>dont quite see the difficulties
>in this, maybe you should
>point some out

Easy.

If a game is that easy to make, it's not that good to begin with. You will find that (usually) the depth and quality are proportional to the time and complexity of the creation process. If games were easy to make, then they would be plentiful and dead common.

This goes double for RPG games. RPGs have more complexity than any other game. Builder programs don't have what it takes to make a good, quality RPG. They can make editors for shooter levels, because they are relatively simplitic.

But the best editor they have made for RPGs amount to something that resembles Dragon Warrior in their game design, and you can't modify the game's engine too much.
 
RE: *sigh*

I agree with you there I tried coding an RPG once and didn't get very far.
 
RE: *sigh*

> If a game is that easy to make, it's not that
> good to begin with.

Whoa. you missed the point entirely. A construction kit does not make unique level creation easy, simply possible. Also, you would not be creating a GAME you would be editting or creating a smal PART of the GAME.

> You will find that (usually) the depth and
> quality are proportional to the time and
> complexity of the creation process.

Generally speaking this is very true. Fallout is no exception. Are you inferring however that if Fallout 3 were developed, from the start, with a Creation Kit in mind, it would somehow affect the quality of the Game? As i see it, the only difference that would exist is the depth and quality of the user-made areas,etc.

A very good example (again referring to FPS) is Halflife. Halflife is very editable, and still a very good game for a shooter. Also, the user-made levels, a very very small percentage granted, in some ways surpass the original game (They Hunger, etc.).

> This goes double for RPG games. RPGs
> have more complexity than any other game.
> Builder programs don't have what it takes to
> make a good, quality RPG. They can make
> editors for shooter levels, because they are
> relatively simplitic.

Creating a RPG is obviously going to be far more difficult. No one said it had to be easy. Builder programs do have what it takes to make a good quality RPG. Fallout was not coded in binary by hand. BIS or the developer for FO3 wouldnt have to release their tools, but a more simplified set, or at least tools that allow a certain level of editing.

> But the best editor they have made for RPGs
> amount to something that resembles
> Dragon Warrior in their game design, and
> you can't modify the game's engine too
> much.

There is no need to modify the game's engine at all, only location of items on maps, scripted events, etc. All of this can be modified in FO1 and FO2, however with a high degree of difficulty. Ask the Mod board.
 
RE: *sigh*

>Generally speaking this is very true.
> Fallout is no exception.
> Are you inferring however
>that if Fallout 3 were
>developed, from the start, with
>a Creation Kit in mind,
>it would somehow affect the
>quality of the Game?
>As i see it, the
>only difference that would exist
>is the depth and quality
>of the user-made areas,etc.

But that takes extra work. First you have to make the editor, then you have to develope a scripting language so people can script their own stuff, then you have to slow down the game with a script interpreter, and ensure that none of the script bombs the program out, then you've got to make it easy enough to use that regular people can use it with ease. After all that you've got to test it. Even after all that you don't have the power you have when programming the game itself without the editor. It isn't a simple process, and it can delay a game a lot, especially with testing. And what is in it for them? Their game isn't a multiplayer game, thus the demand for editablility is small, it encourages pirating since people want their friends to play their home-made game and yet they don't want to buy the actual game. Last, they won't make any extra money whether or not they provide an editor or not. People buy BIS for the RPG, not the fact that you could make your own, BIS wouldn't even need to be there to do that.

>A very good example (again referring
>to FPS) is Halflife.
>Halflife is very editable, and
>still a very good game
>for a shooter. Also,
>the user-made levels, a very
>very small percentage granted, in
>some ways surpass the original
>game (They Hunger, etc.).

But that's a multiplayer FPS game. People have come to expect MODability since Quake first introduced large-scale modding with QuakeWorld. It is also one of the sell-points of the game. FPS games are not prized for their single-player missions (something Romero should get a clue on), that's why Quake III was originally planned to have no real Single-player missions.

RPGs are really for the single-player experience. There's a story and you play through it.

>> This goes double for RPG games. RPGs
>> have more complexity than any other game.
>> Builder programs don't have what it takes to
>> make a good, quality RPG. They can make
>> editors for shooter levels, because they are
>> relatively simplitic.
>
>Creating a RPG is obviously going
>to be far more difficult.
> No one said it
>had to be easy.
>Builder programs do have what
>it takes to make a
>good quality RPG. Fallout
>was not coded in binary
>by hand. BIS or
>the developer for FO3 wouldnt
>have to release their tools,
>but a more simplified set,
>or at least tools that
>allow a certain level of
>editing.

What coding they did script was very limited compared to what could be done with the code itself. It is MOUNDS easier to program game calls into the program itself than develope it in a scripting language.

>> But the best editor they have made for RPGs
>> amount to something that resembles
>> Dragon Warrior in their game design, and
>> you can't modify the game's engine too
>> much.
>
>There is no need to modify
>the game's engine at all,
>only location of items on
>maps, scripted events, etc.
>All of this can be
>modified in FO1 and FO2,
>however with a high degree
>of difficulty. Ask the
>Mod board.

But what does that leave you? You can't make your NPCs talk on the map, you can only pick up items. What are you going to do, just put a huge pack of deathclaws there and let you go bozaring?

-Xotor-


[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: *sigh*

First: I am ont replying to any new messages on this thread, I have attempted to justify my one and only Fallout 3 wish again and again to no avail, this will be my last post.

Second: In reply to Xotor's post i offer this final argument in favor of a FO3 editor.

> But that takes extra work. First you have to
> make the editor, then you have to develope a
> scripting language so people can script their
> own stuff, then you have to slow down the game
> with a script interpreter, and ensure that none
> of the script bombs the program out, then
> you've got to make it easy enough to use that
> regular people can use it with ease. After all
> that you've got to test it. Even after all that
> you don't have the power you have when
> programming the game itself without the editor.
> It isn't a simple process, and it can delay a
> game a lot, especially with testing. And what
> is in it for them? Their game isn't a
> multiplayer game, thus the demand for
> editablility is small, it encourages pirating
> since people want their friends to play their
> home-made game and yet they don't want to buy
> the actual game. Last, they won't make any
> extra money whether or not they provide an
> editor or not. People buy BIS for the RPG, not
> the fact that you could make your own, BIS
> wouldn't even need to be there to do that.

When FO3 is developed, they will use tools to program it. Not one thing will be programmed in binary, the only coding a computer actually can use.

A scripting language will be developed for FO3, no matter how simple or complex, there will be one.

A script interpreter is not a major factor for two reasons: #1 game speed is not an issue with a turn based RPG, and #2 if someone scripts an event wrong, BI isnt responcible, leave it to the creator to figure out.

An editor does not have to be easy enough for normal people to use. That would promote senselessly stupid levels being produced at a rampant rate. A more complex editing tool it preferrable in my opinion, as only those dedicated enough to level creation will attempt it.

Testing would be a problem, however if something is wrong, they would patch it, like with FO1 and 2, neither of those games shipped without bugs or errors.

Piracy and profitability are both good points; however these both are not as big of problems as they seem. BIS gets paid per unit shipped to the stores, not per unit purchased by consumers. As long as the game shows enough demand, they will make the same amount of money wheter stores sell their entire stock, or only half of it.

Maybe there isnt much demand in the RPG field for an editor, but Fallout has a unique, or at least greatly enjoyable if not original atmosphere. Maybe it is time to expect a computer Role-Playing system that is easily modified and user-definable. Role-playing started with pen and paper, and while there were pre-made campaigns available, for the most part players were left to themselves to create the story. A return to the origins of role-play would benefit the entire genre greatly. Anyone disagree?

> But that's a multiplayer FPS game.

Half-life is a great game, not for its multi-play, which sucks in comparison to many others, but for its single-player missions

> RPGs are really for the single-player
> experience. There's a story and you play
> through it.

I disagree in part. RPGs are really for multi-player experience. Thats how they started. Have you tried to role-play alone? People look at you very strangly. Granted, Fallout would lose much of its playability if it was Multi-player, but that option should be available. If you dont want Marcus running around doing his own thing, why not have a friend dial up ur comp, and play his character as your friendly if not accurate NPC.

I agree that there is a story and you play through it, however what is to keep you from creating your own after you have completed the one shipped with the game?

>What coding they did script was very limited
>compared to what could be done with the code
>itself. It is MOUNDS easier to program game
>calls into the program itself than develope it
>in a scripting language.

A scripting language wouldnt be all that difficult to develop. Especially if BIS is intending to develop a new game engine for FO3.
A computer program is created by using a "Programming Language", much similiar to what you refer to as a "Scripting Language". The language you use does eliminate options. If humans were smart enough to code in binary, then they would, and there would be no need for graphics cards, 600Mhz chips, 300 Mbytes RAM, Etc.

A scripting Language does not have to limit
options.

>But what does that leave you? You can't make
>your NPCs talk on the map, you can only pick up
>items. What are you going to do, just put a huge
>pack of deathclaws there and let you go bozaring?

Basically the capacity of any editor is directly proportional to the amount of effort went into developing it. Maybe for once, we gamers as a body should demand software that is both quality, and developed with the user in mind.

-Casca-
 
RE: *sigh*

Ok, I'm not trying to sound condescending here, but it's obvious you don't know what it takes to program.

>Second: In reply to Xotor's
>post i offer this final
>argument in favor of a
>FO3 editor.
>
>> But that takes extra work. First you have to
>> make the editor, then you have to develope a
>> scripting language so people can script their
>> own stuff, then you have to slow down the game
>> with a script interpreter, and ensure that none
>> of the script bombs the program out, then
>> you've got to make it easy enough to use that
>> regular people can use it with ease. After all
>> that you've got to test it. Even after all that
>> you don't have the power you have when
>> programming the game itself without the editor.
>> It isn't a simple process, and it can delay a
>> game a lot, especially with testing. And what
>> is in it for them? Their game isn't a
>> multiplayer game, thus the demand for
>> editablility is small, it encourages pirating
>> since people want their friends to play their
>> home-made game and yet they don't want to buy
>> the actual game. Last, they won't make any
>> extra money whether or not they provide an
>> editor or not. People buy BIS for the RPG, not
>> the fact that you could make your own, BIS
>> wouldn't even need to be there to do that.
>
>When FO3 is developed, they will
>use tools to program it.
> Not one thing will
>be programmed in binary, the
>only coding a computer actually
>can use.
>
>A scripting language will be developed
>for FO3, no matter how
>simple or complex, there will
>be one.

Yes, but all that scripting is done most of the time BY HAND or by template. Essentially, every part is unique. So how would a builder be able to do that?

>A script interpreter is not a
>major factor for two reasons:
>#1 game speed is not
>an issue with a turn
>based RPG, and #2 if
>someone scripts an event wrong,
>BI isnt responcible, leave it
>to the creator to figure
>out.
>
>An editor does not have to
>be easy enough for normal
>people to use. That
>would promote senselessly stupid levels
>being produced at a rampant
>rate. A more complex
>editing tool it preferrable in
>my opinion, as only those
>dedicated enough to level creation
>will attempt it.

The problem with an editor, is that it creates more delay for the creation of the game, and also creates more possibilities for bugs. So now you not only have the main program, but you have to keep in mind the problems the editor might have of it's own, and if it does manage to create things flawlessly. Which it wouldn't be able to make games to anywhere to the quality that BIS can. So in essence they become hollow shell "combat grounds".

>
>>What coding they did script was very limited
>>compared to what could be done with the code
>>itself. It is MOUNDS easier to program game
>>calls into the program itself than develope it
>>in a scripting language.
>
>A scripting language wouldnt be all
>that difficult to develop.
>Especially if BIS is intending
>to develop a new game
>engine for FO3.
>A computer program is created by
>using a "Programming Language", much
>similiar to what you refer
>to as a "Scripting Language".
> The language you use
>does eliminate options. If
>humans were smart enough to
>code in binary, then they
>would, and there would be
>no need for graphics cards,
>600Mhz chips, 300 Mbytes RAM,
>Etc.

That makes no sense whatsoever.


>>But what does that leave you? You can't make
>>your NPCs talk on the map, you can only pick up
>>items. What are you going to do, just put a huge
>>pack of deathclaws there and let you go bozaring?
>
>Basically the capacity of any editor
>is directly proportional to the
>amount of effort went into
>developing it. Maybe for
>once, we gamers as a
>body should demand software that
>is both quality, and developed
>with the user in mind.

BIS games are already with quality. The level of depth they can go to is unrivaled by any game out there. The way they make the game is not ANYWHERE close to being able to be replaced by an editor. Hell, I have written a few dozen text-based games by hand, and when I actually made an editor, there was no way it could copy all the options I had when I was doing it all by hand.

Honestly, I think you should try programming. Something. Anything. Get a feel of your options, then try to build something that can copy all the options and capabilities you had when you were doing it by hand.

It's impossible.
 
RE: *sigh*

>> If a game is that easy to make, it's not that
>> good to begin with.
>
>Whoa. you missed the point entirely.
> A construction kit does
>not make unique level creation
>easy, simply possible. Also,
>you would not be creating
>a GAME you would be
>editting or creating a smal
>PART of the GAME.

And how would you fit it in? Into the map, or into the main story? With an editor? Hell, it takes a while when you are doing this stuff BY HAND, and you have control over every little aspect.

>> You will find that (usually) the depth and
>> quality are proportional to the time and
>> complexity of the creation process.
>
>Generally speaking this is very true.
> Fallout is no exception.
> Are you inferring however
>that if Fallout 3 were
>developed, from the start, with
>a Creation Kit in mind,
>it would somehow affect the
>quality of the Game?
>As i see it, the
>only difference that would exist
>is the depth and quality
>of the user-made areas,etc.
>
>A very good example (again referring
>to FPS) is Halflife.
>Halflife is very editable, and
>still a very good game
>for a shooter. Also,
>the user-made levels, a very
>very small percentage granted, in
>some ways surpass the original
>game (They Hunger, etc.).

Yes, well that's a FPS. Where your only concerns are clipping, keeping framerate high, smoothness, and design. There's a lot more complexity in an RPG.

>> This goes double for RPG games. RPGs
>> have more complexity than any other game.
>> Builder programs don't have what it takes to
>> make a good, quality RPG. They can make
>> editors for shooter levels, because they are
>> relatively simplitic.
>
>Creating a RPG is obviously going
>to be far more difficult.
> No one said it
>had to be easy.
>Builder programs do have what
>it takes to make a
>good quality RPG. Fallout
>was not coded in binary
>by hand. BIS or
>the developer for FO3 wouldnt
>have to release their tools,
>but a more simplified set,
>or at least tools that
>allow a certain level of
>editing.

Yes, they can release those tools.

Well, the tools are publically available already. It's called a "Programming Language".

>> But the best editor they have made for RPGs
>> amount to something that resembles
>> Dragon Warrior in their game design, and
>> you can't modify the game's engine too
>> much.
>
>There is no need to modify
>the game's engine at all,
>only location of items on
>maps, scripted events, etc.
>All of this can be
>modified in FO1 and FO2,
>however with a high degree
>of difficulty. Ask the
>Mod board.

Right. So we essentially plug in another city, another enemy base, or whatever. And it's supposed to fit right into the game?

COME ON!

This isn't some kind of shooter where the level of complexity is a skybox or bot AI. You have a HELL of a lot of things to take into account. Reputation, karma, events, what you do affects elsewhere, whatever. Toying around with stats and graphics is a moot point when you are adding complete areas into a game and expect it to flow into the rest of the game.
 
RE: *sigh*

>I agree with you there I
>tried coding an RPG once
>and didn't get very far.
>

I've been coding text-based games by hand for years. I was working on an editor, but I eventually just gave copies to a few friends before I scrapped it. It couldn't create ANYWHERE the level of depth I could by hand.
 
RE: *sigh*

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-00 AT 09:34PM (GMT)[p]I need to learn a lot more stuff before I could code a game fullstop never mind an rpg.

Made a couple of typos.
 
RE: *sigh*

>[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-00
>AT 09:34 PM (GMT)
>
>I need to learn a lot
>more stuff before I could
>code a game fullstop never
>mind an rpg.
>
>Made a couple of typos.



Start with a text game, with a text interface. Doing subroutines are easy.
You don't need to worry about joystick inteface or mouse, and it's a good way to get comfortable in doing repeated subroutines and such.

I've even made a Perl-based text RPG, and I'm going to see if I can expand on it more.
 
Cascadego, read this last one at least.

>First: I am ont replying
>to any new messages on
>this thread, I have attempted
>to justify my one and
>only Fallout 3 wish again
>and again to no avail,
>this will be my last
>post.

I'm only pointing out why BIS wouldn't make one. I sure wouldn't *mind* one, but the chances of it are slim.

>When FO3 is developed, they will
>use tools to program it.
> Not one thing will
>be programmed in binary, the
>only coding a computer actually
>can use.

You are right, nobody, with the exception of core algorithms and hardware services, creates codes using binary code. Even core algorithms and hardware services have their code done in the Assembly language.

What BIS uses to create much of their dialogue and gameplay is the actual programming language itself, most notably C/C++. This is not a scripting language but a compiled language. It is what is used to make programs like Fallout, and dumpy software like Windows 95.

Why not release that code? Well, unlike idSoftware, which promotes the free source movement, and have figured out that it actually INCREASES revenue, Interplay doesn't like releasing their source code. idSoftware is smart in that they realize that it is only fans who will MOD the game, and only fans will BUY the game. Whether the source code is available or not, they still have a copyright to it and you can't develope from it unless you have a contract or agreement. What it allows is excellent MODDING of games, even greater than Half-Life.

>A scripting language will be developed
>for FO3, no matter how
>simple or complex, there will
>be one.

To tell you the truth, programmers hate making scripting languages. First you have to make the language (grammar, commands, functions, etc.), and the command parser, and then check for script errors, allocating memory for user-made variables, and other things. The sad thing is that usually the scripting language is harder to work with than the regular C/C++ they program in (less familiar, odd syntax, and slow speed).

Programmers will only make a scripting language so others, those without the expertise to edit code, can code their own stuff.

>A script interpreter is not a
>major factor for two reasons:
>#1 game speed is not
>an issue with a turn
>based RPG, and #2 if
>someone scripts an event wrong,
>BI isnt responcible, leave it
>to the creator to figure
>out.

However there are always tons of people who will fill the board with questions on "how to use the editor?", "what did I do wrong?", "why doesn't this work?" and other such questions. It is really a pain.

>An editor does not have to
>be easy enough for normal
>people to use. That
>would promote senselessly stupid levels
>being produced at a rampant
>rate. A more complex
>editing tool it preferrable in
>my opinion, as only those
>dedicated enough to level creation
>will attempt it.

Personally instead of a simple editor, just release the source code to the editor and let the public edit it into a better program. Unfortunately Interplay isn't like that.

>Testing would be a problem, however
>if something is wrong, they
>would patch it, like with
>FO1 and 2, neither of
>those games shipped without bugs
>or errors.

Do you really believe that? There was what, ONE patch for Fallout 2, despite the bugs that were STILL in it afterwards? And an editor would take a lot more ON TOP OF the game.

>Piracy and profitability are both good
>points; however these both are
>not as big of problems
>as they seem. BIS
>gets paid per unit shipped
>to the stores, not per
>unit purchased by consumers.
>As long as the game
>shows enough demand, they will
>make the same amount of
>money wheter stores sell their
>entire stock, or only half
>of it.

Still, the less units sold, the less units ordered by the shop.

>Maybe there isnt much demand in
>the RPG field for an
>editor, but Fallout has a
>unique, or at least greatly
>enjoyable if not original atmosphere.

I agree with that.

> Maybe it is time
>to expect a computer Role-Playing
>system that is easily modified
>and user-definable. Role-playing started
>with pen and paper, and
>while there were pre-made campaigns
>available, for the most part
>players were left to themselves
>to create the story.
>A return to the origins
>of role-play would benefit the
>entire genre greatly. Anyone
>disagree?

However where's the cash flow for Interplay then? If people make their own RPGs, and they are GOOD, why would anyone really need to buy RPGs from BIS then?

>I disagree in part. RPGs
>are really for multi-player experience.

However they are a different sort. Rather a multi-PERSON experience. I had a great time with a friend an a Sega Genesis RPG. It was the sharing of ideas and the game, not playing as a character in the game side by side.

> Thats how they started.
> Have you tried to
>role-play alone? People look
>at you very strangly.
>Granted, Fallout would lose much
>of its playability if it
>was Multi-player, but that option
>should be available. If
>you dont want Marcus running
>around doing his own thing,
>why not have a friend
>dial up ur comp, and
>play his character as your
>friendly if not accurate NPC.

The problem with that is: what if they die? what if there's a dispute about if your companion wants to go deathclaw hunting? Now you've got an independant character. What makes matters worse, is that you can't go off on your own agendas (the laws of FOOL prohibit it), so you all have to decide on what to do.

Also, unless there is one person controlling the character or story, I've found that attention to the storyline really goes downhill. Soon players get bored and want to go shooting everything. It is the entropy of Multiplayer RPGs.

>I agree that there is a
>story and you play through
>it, however what is to
>keep you from creating your
>own after you have completed
>the one shipped with the
>game?

As I said before, I wouldn't mind it, I just don't see it likely.

>A scripting language wouldnt be all
>that difficult to develop.
>Especially if BIS is intending
>to develop a new game
>engine for FO3.
>A computer program is created by
>using a "Programming Language", much
>similiar to what you refer
>to as a "Scripting Language".

However that language is developed by people who have a lot to gain by creating it. Making the language is easy, making the parser is not, and it is especially hard when you have to compensate for non-programmer types and cannot have bad memory calls, and direct access to hardware, etc.

> The language you use
>does eliminate options. If
>humans were smart enough to
>code in binary, then they
>would, and there would be
>no need for graphics cards,
>600Mhz chips, 300 Mbytes RAM,
>Etc.

But humans at BIS *don't* program in binary, they compile their C/C++ programs and sell it. It is faster than scripting, they don't have to make a scripting language, and it is easier (for programmers).

And no, we'd still need the good hardware for some things, like graphics acceleration. Even the best assembly programmer can't create graphics that run fast enough to compare. However Windows could run a little better.

>A scripting Language does not have
>to limit
>options.

It doesn't, but it takes time to implement options.

>Basically the capacity of any editor
>is directly proportional to the
>amount of effort went into
>developing it. Maybe for
>once, we gamers as a
>body should demand software that
>is both quality, and developed
>with the user in mind.

But until 14 year-old ACNE-infested boys don't wait in line for their Final Fantasy interactive movie, we won't see that.

Actually, it takes the game developers to make users demand it. DOOM started it all with the open specs on the WAD format and the maps format. Since then idSoftware has taken GREAT lengths to allow powerful modding of their game, to the extent that they bought the LCC-Win32 compiler source code and modified it to make Quake III DLLs. Hell, they even release the source code to their games, brand new games too, like Q3A (I've got the source code).

If you want to take a stab at programming so you know what I'm talking about, get the free 32-bit C/C++ compiler, DJGPP (www.delorie.com/djgpp/) and get the Allegro graphics/game library at (http://www.talula.demon.co.uk/allegro/). It is really easy to make games with that.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: *sigh*

>>I agree with you there I
>>tried coding an RPG once
>>and didn't get very far.
>>
>
>I've been coding text-based games by
>hand for years. I
>was working on an editor,
>but I eventually just gave
>copies to a few friends
>before I scrapped it.
>It couldn't create ANYWHERE the
>level of depth I could
>by hand.

I was making a DOOR game (BBS Game) called portal. It featured walking around the map, an editor, and even walking over and under objects on the map. I've still got the code too, in Pascal.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
Tasteless Oregon Trail

Hmm, we should set up a programming board for RPGs..

My friends and I were/are thinking of making a "tasteless" Oregon Trail game where the game really puts emphasis on the non-learning parts of the game.

For example, when Johnny suffers from some malignant disease of the west we'd show some nasty picture of Johnny's gengrenous(sp?) leg. Or when you go hunting you can take your assault rifle, and blow the hell out of the wildlife (with full blood of course). Maybe we'll make it in Flash 4 (or 5 when it comes out).

You know, it may be possible to make RPGs in Flash 5 when it comes out. Its Actionscript now follows Javascript, and there is a lot more control over the elements. It could make a nice portable gaming system.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Tasteless Oregon Trail

>
>You know, it may be possible
>to make RPGs in Flash
>5 when it comes out.
> Its Actionscript now follows
>Javascript, and there is a
>lot more control over the
>elements. It could make
>a nice portable gaming system.
>
>

F5 is out already.
 
RE: Cascadego, read this last one at least.

Ok. I know i said i wouldnt do this but what the hell.

BIS doesn't seem all that enthused about producing more fallout-genre games. Otherwise they would be in the process of developing FO3 now. If FO3 (assuming it is produced) is the last one, at least let them give up the code so fans can cobble together a decent set of tools allowing editing. Doing so wont be easy, quick, or provide unlimited options, but someone has to do it and if BIS wont , then i guess the proverbial torch will be passed on.

All along i was only saying i would like an in depth editor to be developed. The costs of doing so would not exceed the rewards. It took an open source code for FPS to open them up to fan modding (making them the most popular type-game out there), and its time the same happend to RPGs. Maybe it has, i havent been keepin up in RPG news lately.

For FO3 lets see an in-depth editor! Anyone *NOT* want one?
 
RE: Cascadego, read this last one at least.

>Ok. I know i said
>i wouldnt do this but
>what the hell.
>
>BIS doesn't seem all that enthused
>about producing more fallout-genre games.
> Otherwise they would be
>in the process of developing
>FO3 now. If FO3
>(assuming it is produced) is
>the last one, at least
>let them give up the
>code so fans can cobble
>together a decent set of
>tools allowing editing. Doing
>so wont be easy, quick,
>or provide unlimited options, but
>someone has to do it
>and if BIS wont ,
>then i guess the proverbial
>torch will be passed on.

Incorrect.
Inteplay and BIS both are HIGHLY interested in the Fallout name. There's just been some other proects in the meantime. Of course, they could spew forth one eye-cadied stodge game after another, a la some Japanese companies, but think about it. For the two games that BIS has made, don't those stick firm in your mind as good games, and a special place in your heart?


>All along i was only saying
>i would like an in
>depth editor to be developed.
> The costs of doing
>so would not exceed the
>rewards. It took an
>open source code for FPS
>to open them up to
>fan modding (making them the
>most popular type-game out there),
>and its time the same
>happend to RPGs. Maybe
>it has, i havent been
>keepin up in RPG news
>lately.

Oh, please....
Aside from not listening to a word from experienced programmers (namely Xotor and myself), you are still refusing to think. The Fallout games are made in the programming language. To introduce a scripting language would take too damn long, and make more room for bugs.

An RPG is not a FPS game. Instead of tweaking a assload of behavior variables, you have to actually write some complicated base code. I've seen both the source for Doom and Daggerfall. Doom is what is to be expected of a FPS. But the reputation and social system that they attempted in Daggerfall....holy shit. That made *my* head spin from it. It's really complicated, and it had a few too many bugs in it. Hell, I fixed a couple of them myself.

Go try to find an RPG editor and see what it can do. Not really much, is there? You might make some dinky Dragon Warrior-esque game, but that's about as in-depth as you might get.

>For FO3 lets see an in-depth
>editor! Anyone *NOT* want
>one?

There's already an editor for Fo1/Fo2, which you might be able to use for Fo3. It's called a "C++ compiler". Because, to get anywhere the depththat BIS puts into it's games, you are going to have to do serious coding which no scripting language can perform as fast or as reliable.
 
RE: Tasteless Oregon Trail

>>You know, it may be possible
>>to make RPGs in Flash
>>5 when it comes out.
>> Its Actionscript now follows
>>Javascript, and there is a
>>lot more control over the
>>elements. It could make
>>a nice portable gaming system.

>F5 is out already.

Not publicly, Flash 5 is still in beta and won't be available until September.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top