D&DAYZ - A great article from a game designers POV

[Amentis 3]

Hey gang,

I thought the community would enjoy this and also spark a great discussion.

http://www.gamebreaker.tv/pc-games/ddayz/

Full Disclosure - Yes I am from GAMEBREAKER :)

[Alex067 4]

So what you're saying is that you wrote this article and want your ego boosted up?

[FrostDMG 398]

Gamebreaker FTW! I actually really like your shows guys, keep up the good work.

Also, thanks for the link mate!

[Amentis 3]

No I actually did not write the article...just thought the community would enjoy the read.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Decent read. I have to say it falls a bit flat, though. A larger world with more dangerous areas. Of course. That's kind of a no-brainer I should think. Not so much discussing potential as inevitable progression. That's like saying there should be more communication methods or cooperative team play elements. This is all given.

As game designers we should be one step ahead. Talking about DayZ 2.0 not what 1.0 is likely to have. 1.0 is the easy stuff. The must-have's and the gimme's. The "of course's."

We need to be thinking about the what-if's and the holy-shit-can-you-imagine's.

DayZ has the potential to revolutionize online gaming. We should be discussing the revolution.

[Grendel Khan 0]

Decent read. I have to say it falls a bit flat' date=' though. A larger world with more dangerous areas. Of course. That's kind of a no-brainer I should think. Not so much discussing potential as inevitable progression. That's like saying there should be more communication methods or cooperative team play elements. This is all given.

As game designers we should be one step ahead. Talking about DayZ 2.0 not what 1.0 is likely to have. 1.0 is the easy stuff. The must-have's and the gimme's. The "of course's."

We need to be thinking about the what-if's and the holy-shit-can-you-imagine's.

DayZ has the potential to revolutionize online gaming. We should be discussing the revolution.

[/quote']

Thanks for the feedback but you seem to have missed the essence of my post. The article is entitled "Massively Micro Player: The Power of Intimacy and Gaming" not "Blue Sky Dreams: Why Games Often get Canceled in Production".

Sometimes it's best to step away from the revolutionizing to make sure you've picked up your laundry from the cleaners first.

-RV

[lev 39]

Decent read. I have to say it falls a bit flat' date=' though. A larger world with more dangerous areas. Of course. That's kind of a no-brainer I should think. Not so much discussing potential as inevitable progression. That's like saying there should be more communication methods or cooperative team play elements. This is all given.

As game designers we should be one step ahead. Talking about DayZ 2.0 not what 1.0 is likely to have. 1.0 is the easy stuff. The must-have's and the gimme's. The "of course's."

We need to be thinking about the what-if's and the holy-shit-can-you-imagine's.

DayZ has the potential to revolutionize online gaming. We should be discussing the revolution.

[/quote']

Far from it. Talking about 2.0 and beyond is easy because the sky is the limit for what you can come up with using just a little bit of imagination. Figuring how to make 1.0 a reality is the hard part.

Its quite easy to say: imagine a persistent open world game where hundreds of thousands of players can connect to a single server on a map the size of the world where every entity of the world is simulated. It would be pretty mind blowing if that sort of game existed. Good luck getting there though.

From a feature standpoint the many posts on the forum have already come up with solutions to disconnectors, server hoppers, etc. Implementation of those features are not so easy. Coding is not a matter of: I have this great idea, 1, 2, 3 and done. Its even worse when your targeted population is in the hundred thousands. A single feature done incorrectly with a tiny fault that can slip through the cracks of private testing can screw up the game for all of us users. Not to mention the challenge of building implementations that not only are correct but scale well also.

Its fun to talk about the future and imagine cool things but making things work in the present is the real challenge.

[Slyguy65 499]

So what you're saying is that you wrote this article and want your ego boosted up?

people like you are just not pleasant.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Its fun to talk about the future and imagine cool things but making things work in the present is the real challenge.

If you don't trust rocket to handle building the foundation, then you probably ought not to be playing DayZ. There's not much we as a community can do to facilitate 1.0. It's technical stuff. Making the database work. Preventing hacks. Fixing exploits. Stopping dupes. Getting collision to work. We can point out issues and say "Look! Icky stuff!" but how much of a help do you really think that will be?

If he can't make it to 1.0 without us holding his hand, we're lost at sea anyway and DayZ will die on the vine.

[lev 39]

Its fun to talk about the future and imagine cool things but making things work in the present is the real challenge.

If you don't trust rocket to handle building the foundation' date=' then you probably ought not to be playing DayZ. There's not much we as a community can do to facilitate 1.0. It's technical stuff. Making the database work. Preventing hacks. Fixing exploits. Stopping dupes. Getting collision to work. We can point out issues and say "Look! Icky stuff!" but how much of a help do you really think that will be?

If he can't make it to 1.0 without us holding his hand, we're lost at sea anyway and DayZ will die on the vine.

[/quote']

This is not at all what I was suggesting. Perhaps you should reread my post and try to understand the point. I was merely refuting your statement that: ' 1.0 is the easy stuff. The must-have's and the gimme's. The "of course's." ' Of course I trust Rocket's ability to build code. If not I would not even be on this forum right now.

Also you seem to be misconstruing the community's role in the development process. To suggest that we are or should be "designing" the game is to undermine your own statement about Rocket's competency (considering he designed the entire game that we are enjoying) and grossly over-inflating our roles in development. We're the testers of his game. We're not game designers. Rocket is the game designer and developer. We're not creating a vision, we're helping him achieve his so we can enjoy it.

The role of the tester is to find the bugs, exploits, what not so that Rocket can fix them. If we had some coders in the group, then suggest or discuss potential fixes/implementations. We're also his customers so we can request and suggest features we'd like to see. If you think our job is any more than that you've been deluded.

---

Back to the article on hand. I don't see the need for new maps for the players to progress onto. I think what the author is actually seeking is more content to play with. One possible solution is the chance to "rebuild civilization" and after that, power plays to manipulated aforementioned "civilization". DayZ is somewhat similar to EVE in that, there is no end state to the game besides the ones you define for yourself. Currently the lack of infrastructure to support features that could constitute "rebuilding civilization" makes it very hard to achieve that goal beyond rudimentary steps but I think this is what the author is looking for.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

We're the testers of his game. We're not game designers.

We're both. rocket has made no bones about it. This is a collaborative design effort. He's listening to our ideas and has already shown a willingness to incorporate them into the game.

Why do you think we're playing an Alpha? If he thought he could design it on his own he would have just waited for Beta and spared himself listening to all the bitching and moaning from people who don't know what an Alpha is.

Obviously he has final say, but I think it's pretty clear that he hasn't designed the game yet and he's working with us to do so.

I'm not sure why we're arguing, but yeah. Good thread anyway.

Cheers.