EA developing System Shock 3

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608231315370.2856.DeleteThis@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de>,
Werner Spahl <spahl.DeleteThis@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Bent C Dalager wrote:
>
>And where did you get the plans from? I can't remember...

Does it matter? They can be open source schematics for all I know

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.DeleteThis@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:15:59 +0200, Werner Spahl
<spahl.DeleteThis@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Bent C Dalager wrote:
>
>>> Which leads to the same question: why does it know how to do weapons?
>>
>> You teach it.
>
>And where did you get the plans from? I can't remember...

From the computer of the military spaceship? It's not beyond belief to
assume a complicated device like a nanite reassembler (a.k.a. the
dispenser) would be connected to the ship's computer. And the ship's
computer probably has a database of nanite "recipes" to replicate
everything, from bullets to bridal gowns. So all you're doing with the
hack is downloading the design plan from one computer to the other.

Of course, all this is really just silly extrapolation about a neat
game design feature; Irrational wanted a change from the usual "you
find a magazine lying on the floor" or "the dead rat had 3 health
packs on it" gameplay. Is it completely realistic? Of course not (then
again, neither are FTL spaceships and evil AIs). Was it completely
innovative? No, not that either; it's just going to the weapon-shop
like in other RPGs. But the added difficulty of having to "hack" the
storekeeper added some excitement, especially as there was always a
chance you could break the thing and lose out on the goodies. It added
to the atmosphere of the game.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Bent C Dalager wrote:

>> And where did you get the plans from? I can't remember...
>
> Does it matter? They can be open source schematics for all I know

I mean, how do you get them in the game? I don't think you do...

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608231452330.2856.RemoveThis@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de>,
Werner Spahl <spahl.RemoveThis@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>I mean, how do you get them in the game? I don't think you do...

You just have them. Why should you have to explicitly obtain them?

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Bent C Dalager wrote:

> I am sure it is possible to think up some plausible scenario for that
> as well, so let's try:

Blah, blah, blah . Why do the weapons not destroy themselves then, the
moment the owner dies? Come on, just admit that the whole setup is stupid,
from dispensers building weapons, to them breaking in your hands but not
those of the enemies. And people complained about the unified DX:IW ammo!

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608231453020.2856.TakeThisOut@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de>,
Werner Spahl <spahl.TakeThisOut@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>Blah, blah, blah . Why do the weapons not destroy themselves then, the
>moment the owner dies?

That's just too big a job to ask of a bunch of overworked nanites. Be
happy they are able to screw them up as much as they do

> Come on, just admit that the whole setup is stupid,
>from dispensers building weapons, to them breaking in your hands but not
>those of the enemies. And people complained about the unified DX:IW ammo!

Dispensers building weapons isn't stupid, it's just a case of a
high-tech 3D printer. We will get there eventually (in fact, to an
extent we are there already but you're looking at very low-tech
weaponry like slingshots etc.)

The uselessness of weapons picked up I can agree was tad stupid but
more importantly, it was disappointing. After having lost tons of
health bashing a zombie to death, not getting a proper shotgun off the
corpse was a real let-down.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.TakeThisOut@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Bent C Dalager wrote:

> Dispensers building weapons isn't stupid, it's just a case of a
> high-tech 3D printer. We will get there eventually.

This is the same case with the unified ammo of DX:IW, nanotech could
surely do something like that. But is it fun in a game?

> The uselessness of weapons picked up I can agree was tad stupid but
> more importantly, it was disappointing.

Exactly. As with the ammo issue discussed elsewhere, there are things
that make a game fun and things that don't.

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:07:28 +0000 (UTC), bcd DeleteThis @pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager)
wrote:

>In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608231453020.2856 DeleteThis @cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de>,
>Werner Spahl <spahl DeleteThis @cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>>
>>Blah, blah, blah . Why do the weapons not destroy themselves then, the
>>moment the owner dies?
>
>That's just too big a job to ask of a bunch of overworked nanites. Be
>happy they are able to screw them up as much as they do
>
>> Come on, just admit that the whole setup is stupid,
>>from dispensers building weapons, to them breaking in your hands but not
>>those of the enemies. And people complained about the unified DX:IW ammo!
>
>Dispensers building weapons isn't stupid, it's just a case of a
>high-tech 3D printer. We will get there eventually (in fact, to an
>extent we are there already but you're looking at very low-tech
>weaponry like slingshots etc.)

They can make simple models now with a laser and tank filled with some kind of
liquid plastic/resin. A computer points and fires the laser into the tank and
where it strikes it causes the resin to harden. Drain the liquid away and
theres your item. I believe they were using it to make models of ship hulls or
something similar but you could build any object without complex moving parts
this way.

Werner Spahl <spahl.DeleteThis@cup.uni-muenchen.de> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> reprogram (hack) the dispenser so it would give you bullets instead of
>
>How would you do that if the dispenser had the bullet plans not already in
>it? Which leads to the same question: why does it know how to do weapons?

They're probably all hooked up to the central computer and the "hack"
you do is merely unlocking access to items not normally available
through that dispenser.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

Werner Spahl wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Bent C Dalager wrote:
>
> > Dispensers building weapons isn't stupid, it's just a case of a
> > high-tech 3D printer. We will get there eventually.
>
> This is the same case with the unified ammo of DX:IW, nanotech could
> surely do something like that. But is it fun in a game?


The unified ammo issue was only a minor glitch and it has nothing to do
with the fact that DX:IW was a bad game intented for simpletons.


> > The uselessness of weapons picked up I can agree was tad stupid but
> > more importantly, it was disappointing.
>
> Exactly. As with the ammo issue discussed elsewhere, there are things
> that make a game fun and things that don't.

Really!

Werner Spahl <spahl.TakeThisOut@cup.uni-muenchen.de> writes:

> Blah, blah, blah . Why do the weapons not destroy themselves then,
> the moment the owner dies?

Isn't that exactly what happens, when the body and the weapon
disappear? Of course, for you, this is a different point of complaint
about SS2.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Xocyll wrote:

> Just fine, since it completely removed ammo as a concern and left the
> space free for other stuff.

Bloodlines did it similar with it's weapons, no concern to sell them off
anymore . BTW, did you like DX:IWs unified ammo?

> Well perhaps your term is accurate for Bloodlines - it certainly
> _wasn't_ a properly done RPG for exactly those reasons - capped ammo,

Like I said and I liked it. Also all recent FPS/RPG hybrids I played had
limited inventories only (DX:IW, Bloodlines) and even Oblivion is going in
the FPS direction with inventory being only limited by weight but not
size. That's fine by me but I would even more like to see an inventory
where you could place items onto the characters body at the right places
like with good old Dungeon Master and then see them from the outside right
there. Which of course would limit you to maybe 6 normal weapons at all.

In fact they could scrap the whole RPG experience points and stats for me
as well and reward us with weapons and powerups instead. What I really
like about RPGs above FPS are a great storyline and cool side quests!

> SS2 on the other hand didn't do that nonsense - it's an RPG - the fact
> you use guns instead of bows is irrelevant. Stats and skills decided
> what you could or could not do.

But it left too little choices which reduced the fun for me. I like to
have some choices as of how to tackle a situation on the spot, without
having to start the whole game over with another character.

> Uh hello, I have the magazines, I have 12 gauge shells, there's no
> reason in the world other than designer stupidity to not allow me to put
> the shells in the magazines.

Agreed, but then in Half-Life you use the same magazines or bullets for a
Glock and an MP5. They just don't care about reloading in those games. But
I could change the shell size to fix that in my next patch .

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

Werner Spahl <spahl DeleteThis @cup.uni-muenchen.de> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Xocyll wrote:
>
>> Just fine, since it completely removed ammo as a concern and left the
>> space free for other stuff.
>
>Bloodlines did it similar with it's weapons, no concern to sell them off
>anymore . BTW, did you like DX:IWs unified ammo?

Except ammo was ALWAYS a concern in Bloodlines, since it got capped off.
You pretty much never had enough good ammo, and you could never sell of
ammo you had no use for (or the dozens, if not hundred of guns you
weren't allowed to pick up.)

I didn't care much for the original Dues Ex, so I never played IW.

>> Well perhaps your term is accurate for Bloodlines - it certainly
>> _wasn't_ a properly done RPG for exactly those reasons - capped ammo,
>
>Like I said and I liked it. Also all recent FPS/RPG hybrids I played had
>limited inventories only (DX:IW, Bloodlines) and even Oblivion is going in
>the FPS direction with inventory being only limited by weight but not
>size. That's fine by me but I would even more like to see an inventory
>where you could place items onto the characters body at the right places
>like with good old Dungeon Master and then see them from the outside right
>there. Which of course would limit you to maybe 6 normal weapons at all.

The character sheet equipment screen generally ISN'T "inventory",
inventory is where everything you aren't wearing goes.

I don't know HOW you can claim that having an inventory limited by
weight is "going in the FPS direction", since items having a weight is
an RPG thing - not an FPS thing where you get to carry 7+weapons and
ammo for them all without thinking about it.

>In fact they could scrap the whole RPG experience points and stats for me
>as well and reward us with weapons and powerups instead. What I really
>like about RPGs above FPS are a great storyline and cool side quests!

>> SS2 on the other hand didn't do that nonsense - it's an RPG - the fact
>> you use guns instead of bows is irrelevant. Stats and skills decided
>> what you could or could not do.
>
>But it left too little choices which reduced the fun for me. I like to
>have some choices as of how to tackle a situation on the spot, without
>having to start the whole game over with another character.

Having to decide what to take and what to leave IS a choice - one
Bloodlines completely sidestepped by letting you carry _everything_ and
not letting you get rid of some things at all.

SS2 had inventory limited by both space and weight so you had hard
choices about what you were going to keep and carry and what you were
going to drop (and maybe go back for later) - you simply couldn't take
everything, even with the maximum inventory size high strength got you.

Having to decide which weapons you were going to develop skills in is a
choice and one that also interacts with the inventory limitations.

>> Uh hello, I have the magazines, I have 12 gauge shells, there's no
>> reason in the world other than designer stupidity to not allow me to put
>> the shells in the magazines.
>
>Agreed, but then in Half-Life you use the same magazines or bullets for a
>Glock and an MP5. They just don't care about reloading in those games. But
>I could change the shell size to fix that in my next patch .

Who cares how a shooter did it since you never even see a clip.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr