What is your overarching vision of the game?

[Rusty Nail]

See my comment today posted on the wrong thread (Dino's Alpha Centauri) for a logical game concept.

[bcr3]

I see a whole lot about realtime in these discussions, and I have to tell you... realtime is sooo unfair to human players. I mean, there is no possible way to compete. The computer doesn't have to find the right buttons, and its strategy decisions are made in thousandths of a second...

If this game must be realtime, I'd like to see it run like Breach 3, where you can call a timeout for human players to redirect their strategies. The computer does nothing during these timeouts, and neither do your units. It is simply a chance for you to redistribute supplies, give orders and plan.

As far as the goal, I think surviving the asteroid and evolving into mammals is a good enough goal.

More later... class now...

------------------
Anarchist Supreme of the Glorious PROT!
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Audentior Independant Nation.

Frank: "You live at Apolyton, don't you?"
bcr3: "Pretty much."

[Krusty]

map making would be different, you would set like a starting thing, and designate continental drift, which would change. Hmm, ypu have to have the Pangaea turning into Modern Continents, but the random maps would require some work

[Pythagoras]

Thanks everyone for replying. sorry I didnt get back here and reply to your earlier post, noviceCEO, I was sorta waitn for more people to read it.

quote: I think about starting the game like you do. You would have the option of getting a (or some) specific species and then you would be able to develop from that. You could even have an option of 30 initial species and have the option to choose 5 among those according to your mood. About the "evolution bonus", I really don't think you should work that way. I think the evolution should go almost in its whole by itself. I mean, you wouldn't tell to your dino "Go learn how to swim", but you would gradually move to lakes and try to adopt his life to a lake. Then, as the time goes by, he would reach a perfect adoption to that environment. His temperature and skin would be adopted to live most of the time in the water, he would have already learned to feed in the water and now that he spends all the time in the water he would start to learn how to swim close distances (elephants do that, you know) until he is a great swimmer. It's just an example, but evolution was that way, butin the reverse process, when the animals started leaving the water to live on the ground.

I hadnt really thought about moving from land to sea to air type evolutions. In fact, I dont know if I would even include those types of evolution just for the sake of simplicity. And if you think about it, you never here about the t-rex's ancestor being the pleasasour... so for simplicity sake, I'd limit a 'home' environment (basicly where the dino likes to eat, see "Food supply" in my outline) to 2 factors-
1.Mean Temp of that area,
2.Raininess/Elevation(terrain)
basicly the dino pack is used to eating a certain type of food, and is used to a certain temperature. Changing your 'food supply'-moving to an area of different raininess/elevation/temp will force you to spend on adapting to a new food supply. You could do that or migrate to follow your food. I do however see your point of adapting your dino pack to new environment gradually. Here's a way to fix it, lets suppose dino pack A is used to an area of 35 degrees Celcius, food from terrain 1 raininess, 1 elevation. Now we can create a bell curve of sorts for temperature where 35 degrees celcius is the mean. At that mean dinos have a 100% adaptability, and maybe 95% at 34 and 36 degrees and so on. Similarly for raininess, dino pack A has a 100% apaptability to raininess of 1 and elevation of 1, a bigger adaptability dropoff is made when you move between different raininesses/elevations (like 50%). Dino pack A has an overall adaptability to any terrain with temp T, raininess R, and Elevation E of (T+R+E)/3 for now. Dino Pack A's food when eating in any square would be equal to its (overall apatability)/100) * basefoodsupply for said terrain square of food supply (T,R,E). Now Dino Pack A wishes to move to a new terrain and adapt to it. Dino Pack A has to shift its mean T, its mean R, and its mean E for all that apply. It can only increase or decrease its own mean T,R,E individually by a certain amount. So Dino Pack A moving from a Raininess 1 to 2, with same T and E, would increase its mean raininess in increments of 1/4. Temperature would be relatively cheaper to change, since you are only changing 1 degree or so.

quote: Maybe they would have to "sleep" during the winter

Well mean temp is mean temp yhroughout the year. And turns will probably involve at least thousands of years, so we shouldnt worry about winter.

quote: lizards there (about 1,10m, including their tale) and the nicest thing about them is exactly their tale. It's a really nice evolution, as the big tale is a nice attacking weapon and it also servers as a food supply

Well in my proposal there would be tons of 'special ability' evolutions you could achieve,

quote: About the warmth line you refer to, I think you're talking about what we call "Equador" (in English it should be 'Equator' maybe).

The 'warmth line' is essentially based on the earths tilt, a big factor in climate.

quote: I think the Weather should have a significant impact in the game. Basically, because it also changes the trees and plants on a certain place. If your dinosaur is moving to a Forest, around a Lake or to the desert should have a massive impact on your dino's evolution (or death..hehe).

Well thats the potnt in describing terrain with raininess, elevation, temp. Of course I use those 3 vals to describe food supply, if a dino pack moves into a desert from a jungle, its gonna have no idea what to do with itself! The food supply I talk about is solely for herbavores, but similar but less affecting system could be applied for carnivores.

well, this already has been my longest post ever, I'll post again replying to everyone else when I get some time.

[SailorUranus]

I dread if this is a Sim-like game. I, for one, was never a particular fan of the Sim games. I've never played either SC2000 or SC3000 to the year 1940 because I was completely bored with the game by then. In the case of SC2000, it was the tedious micromanagment, for SC3000, it was lack of depth (compare SC2000 vs. SC3000 and you'll know what I mean).

Personally, I also feel this game may already have two problems. One, familiarity, when most of the players are familiar to the CIV/SMAC/Colonization style of gameplay, how will they take to this sudden change in direction? Granted Gettysburg and Pirates weren't like the CIV turn-based style game, but they were expected to be real-time games. If this game is going to be real-time, kill the project. Don't waste your time with Warcraft III in production. You have no hope in beating it in any shape or form.

Second, and this is the primary problem, is the obvious lack of depth and, ultimately, gameplay. At first glance, gameplay looks like it will be very repetitive and limited, regardless of how the game will be played.

When more details conscerning plot and gameplay are released, I may give my final verdict. But overall, it may look good on paper, but in reality, it just doesn't seem right... especially if it's supposed to lead into CIV.

If I remember correctly, recent Dino-themed games have fared poorly in the market. So is creating yet another one a good idea? Why not broaden the spectrum? Why not create Sid Meier's Evolution instead?

Actually... that doesn't sound like a bad idea... let me work out a few details and I'll post some of Evolution's basics.

[Pythagoras]

Well from reading the dino diaries, the game is nothing like SMAC/CivII... just by it being real time.

[supremus]

I've got nothing to say but agree with SailorUranus. Considering the avaliable data so far, Sid is going to be involved in a very big disaster. RTS Dino game ? Please Sid, go back to Civ 3 team and do your best there !

[Pythagoras]

I totally disagree with SailorUranus

quote: Personally, I also feel this game may already have two problems. One, familiarity, when most of the players are familiar to the CIV/SMAC/Colonization style of gameplay, how will they take to this sudden change in direction?

Well, the whole point is its an entirely new game. SMAC and Colonization were both in many ways illegitimate sequels. What makes you think that this game is going to be at all similar? Sid is very capable of making non civ games, hes only designed 1 civ game (civ I) and is fully capable of coming up with good original ideas. (He has for 20 years) All of the 'civ sequels' were designed by BR and Sid has had minimal contact with those games.

How do you call it a sudden 'change in direction?' Its a new game, new direction, start from scratch. Like I said it being an RTS should speak enough on how different and original it will be. and Sid is perfectly capable of making good RTS strategy. (ahem... Gettysburg/Antietam?)

quote: Second, and this is the primary problem, is the obvious lack of depth and, ultimately, gameplay. At first glance, gameplay looks like it will be very repetitive and limited, regardless of how the game will be played.

We know so little about the game to judge it now, anyway-> read Graag and I's ideas on how the game could turn out to be, and I think you will find enough depth.

quote: But overall, it may look good on paper, but in reality, it just doesn't seem right... especially if it's supposed to lead into CIV.

I agree I dont know how this is going to work, but why judge dinos based on how it fits into the sweep of time? Its a game by itself, the "Sweep of Time" is a collection of 3 seperate games.

quote: If I remember correctly, recent Dino-themed games have fared poorly in the market. So is creating yet another one a good idea? Why not broaden the spectrum? Why not create Sid Meier's Evolution instead?

How many dino games have there been? and who cares how it does, i'll play it if its good. For me, sid has never dissapointed in designing a good, very replayable and deep game. If you look at anything from his early flight sims to Pirates, to RRTycoon, to Civ I, to Gettysburg... I'm sure Dinos will be another to add to the list. Based on Sid's track record and experience, I think we should all 'trust in Sid.' The fact that he may be making a poor marketting decision just says to me he knows hes working on a great game thats worth the marketting risk. I think we should all sit back, and just trust in Sid.... he knows what hes doing...

quote: Considering the avaliable data so far, Sid is going to be involved in a very big disaster. RTS Dino game ? Please Sid, go back to Civ 3 team and do your best there !

Sid hasnt worked on a Civ game since Civ I, I dont trust him there, and franky I dont think Sid trusts Sid there.

[supremus]

Huummmmm... Bad news. If Sid has reasons to not trust himself involved in Civ 3 team and if Brian & others have gone who will be in charge of Civ 3 development ?
If what we have to wait for the near future is only a RTS Dino game (Urgh...) signed by Sid and a very big doubt about Civ 3 future, I hope at least Activision can do a good job with CTP II.

[NoviceCEO]

SailorUranus, I totally disagree with you. I'll not explain why, because Pythagoras has already done it.

I would like to add to his reply that the fact that no Sim games entertained you doesn't mean they won't entertain other people. Also, why not expecting that Dino's will have something that SC3k didn't have that will entertain you. It seems to be that you were attracted by that genre of game, otherwise you wouldn't have played SC3000 after playing SC2000, but you were looking for something new, something that looks good, something that Dino's can have.

Dinossaurus are a good commercial product. But it haven't been well explored in computer games yet. Or are you telling me Spielberg hasn't made any money with dinosaurs?

Pythagoras, I liked your concept about evolution. It's based on some pretty obvious aspects, that no one else had written about before: if dino's "want" to evolve, they should focus on one aspect.

If they climb a mountain and adapt there, where they find similar food, fine. But if they go there and there's less water, then thinks starts to complicate a little bit.

One problem is that it'll be a problem to sepparate temperature, raininess and elevation. They're all so much interelated that they merge into one single aspect. If you move to higher elevation, the temperature will usually fall and the raininess will change. But the core of your solution remains great.

[Pythagoras]

Ok, Graag, I got around to reading your ideas-

quote: Ecology. Obviously you cant have too many herbivores or carnivores. You need to balance these. You will also need to balance plant life. A key factor of the game is that some tools affect more than one species/lifeform, eg if you try to make one species stronger by adding steriods (or something) to their food, by adding steroids to their food's food (plants) it will affect the plants, and may make the food of the top dino to strong to kill. The world is made up of tiles.

Yeah, we seem to agree that keeping a balance between Carnivores and Herbavores is essential here.

Your ideas are good, they seem based around the idea that the game is gonna be like Jurrasic Park where you are managing the dinos and the ecosystem whereby my idea is that you are the dinosour and you have to survive the ecosystem.

quote: Other Players. You converse with other players in a civ2 style, ie have border disputes, give species to other players, kill other player's dinos with yours. There will be fights over areas rich in food/natural radiation etc. Perhaps it is possible to lure other player's dinos to your cause, but I cant be bothered to think how.

I have always thought of this game as not really competitive, but more like "sim-dinos." There are multiple dinos walking around the map, and as in my idea you start with a pack, can evolve half of it if you want and you get 2 units, and they grow and may evolve in seperate paths ad infidium... and this is all from your 'seed' pack. Now in my model/idea you can give up control of a pack to the AI as you see fit. You may also accidentally/(purposefully?) have your dinos competting with each other. Now the AI/Other players each start out with there own 'seed pack' that has several non changable conditions -> their 'realm' (sea, air, land) and there eating habits (herbavore, carnivore). The thing I like about this is you control your own level of management. You can either control a gazillion packs, all walking the globe evolving, or just specialize in your one 'baby' group. And like all Sim games, this game has no objective and goes on as long as you want it.

[NoviceCEO]

As Pythagoras said, Graag's ideas are pretty much like "Jurassic Park". It's a good solution and it may go that way.

I'll add some points in the "realism" section. I know the game doesn't need to be 100% accurate, but you should know when you're putting something inaccurate on it.

quote: Breeding - you encourage certain specieces to breed with others, to give their offspring their attributes (which could obviously go wrong)

You ican't (in real word) breed different species. The definition of "species" is "A group of individuals that when coupulate will have fertile descendents". Therefore, if you breed different species, their "children" won't be able to have their own little dino's.

Another problem may be by the usage of small numbers of dino's. The problem with it is that the smaller the number of dino's smaller the probability of generating new species (evolving) is. I'm assuming this based on the definition of the Modern Evolution Theory, which says "individuals evolve by chance". I hate this definition though.

[Dienstag]

Well, found this thread again...

I recognize that Civ II is plagued by unrealistic features, but that's my biggest hope improvement in Civ III. I'd prefer that both Dinos and Civ III find a way to be both realistic _and_ fun. I'm optomistic that Civ III can do this, but I have some huge doubts about Dinos.

What would a realistic dino game need to include? Evolution, complex ecological models, eventual Asteroid impact, and so on... We've already mentioned all of these and some of you have really neat ideas here.

On the other hand, one of the things a realistic dinos game can't have is anything resembling human intelligence (unless we do Graag's time traveller idea). Face it, Dinos were dumb (brains the size of walnuts, et...). Lack of intelligence implies lack of long term planning, decision-making, abstract thinking, etc... I know you can make the case that there were a few smarter-than-average dinos, but there was never anything to the extent that a game could be based on it. There is a fundamental difference between Dinos and games like Civ II and SimCity, and that is that humans are smart. We can do things that make neat games, like building cities and waging wars.

Dinos can't. They just eat, give birth to the occasional mutant, and die. They don't choose to migrate or fight in anything like the way humans do (if at all). And they definately knowledge of or influence on evolution. So since they can't even do the things that make a game like Sim City fun (much less Civ II) a realistic version of Dinosaurs will be little more than a glorified screen-saver, and that wouldn't be incredibly fun.

I know most of this may sound rather harsh, and I don't really want it to. All I'm trying to do is show why I doubt Dinos can be both realistic and fun. If anyone has ideas on this I'd be happy to hear them. If no one else really wants Dinos to be realistic, then say so and I'll stop bothering you. Thanks.

Dienstag