StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Melchior wrote: Have you ever liked a movie that was disturbing and unpleasant?
I have.

Must I explain the differences between the medium of film and the medium of games?

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Melchior wrote: Have you ever liked a movie that was disturbing and unpleasant?
I have.

Must I explain the differences between the medium of film and the medium of games?

I think it isn't needed.
But while I see that games should be fun, I am merely using technologies created for them to try to make another type of program.
EDIT: This is a quick draw of one of the helicopters.

I don't like the yellow orbs, probably I will rework them somehow.

Melchior wrote: Have you ever liked a movie that was disturbing and unpleasant?

Yes, because they're still entertaining due to they way they're presented and constructed.

What you have is not a game but an amature thought-experiment, and yet it's made in the shape and form of a game. It's a media that uses gameplay to present things that nobody wants to play; it is intentionally designed to "not be fun" but that doesn't change the fact you've still designed a game.

I think you're being indescisive about what you exaclty want to do as well as underestimating your intended audience. People can follow themes alot better than you'd think.

Utsanomiko wrote:

Melchior wrote: Have you ever liked a movie that was disturbing and unpleasant?

What you have is not a game but an amature thought-experiment, and yet it's made in the shape and form of a game. It's a media that uses gameplay to present things that nobody wants to play; it is intentionally designed to "not be fun" but that doesn't change the fact you've still designed a game.

I haven't designed (better: trying to design) a game, but a program were you interact in a way that is not fun. "Being" fun is requisite for a game or only for a good game?

I think you're being indescisive about what you exaclty want to do as well as underestimating your intended audience. People can follow themes alot better than you'd think.

Could you explain this again?

He means that people are smarter than you take them for granted.

Melchior wrote: I haven't designed (better: trying to design) a game, but a program were you interact in a way that is not fun.

Ahhh, there's your problem, then. What you have actually designed is a paradox. It's like making a movie to act like it's not a movie and be unwatchable as a movie, but still in form be a movie and is intended to be watched. You're tying to make something that you think isn't a game, but in truth still uses interraction, gameplay, goals, even a standard game genre with typical visual elements from said genre that ultimately makes it still a game.

"Being" fun is requisite for a game or only for a good game?

Both.

Could you explain this again?

You're tying to express ideas in an unnecessary manner. For example, Half-Life 2 told its story though a fun game without any cutscenes or 3rd-person perspectives. A movie tells its story exclusively through film scenes and an external perspective. There's a whole bunch of ways to tell a story if you know what you want to communicate and how to do it. You don't. You're making what in all appearance is a game which is not a game and is not fun. I don't know about eveyrone else here, but to me that just screams "don't know what you're doing".

are you trying to make something like a programm that should keep people from liking war, or something like that? kind of like drunk drivers who are forced to look at burned people who died as a result of drunk driving?
that seems impossible to me to make. because on the one hand it shouldn´t be fun and on the other hand you want people to play it. you can´t force them like they do with drunk drivers.

it that´s it, i find it an interesting concept. keep it up. i hope you´ll surprise us with success.

Melchior wrote: I think it isn't needed.
But while I see that games should be fun, I am merely using technologies created for them to try to make another type of program.
EDIT: This is a quick draw of one of the helicopters.
[img]http://img181.exs.cx/img181/2401/helo5ae.jpg[img]
I don't like the yellow orbs, probably I will rework them somehow.

Several immediate issues come to mind. The first is the huge spotlight. Not only is it amazingly huge, in combat its only real use (unless the people using it don't have night vision goggles or thermal imagers or smaller spotlights) would be to provide the enemy with something to aim at when they try to shoot it down. The second and third issues concern the rotors. They are far too small, unless this aircraft is absurdly lightweight there is just no way they could move enough air to keep it aloft. They need to be either much larger, look at the V-22 Osprey for what you really would need, or they need to not be rotors. Depending on how sci fi this aircraft is, one option could be to make the source of lift be a pair of jet engines. They could be electrically powered if you have some compact sci fi source of electricity, which can pump out a lot of power for a long time without needing much fuel. A fusion power source perhaps. Then your aircraft would basically be a cross between a V-22 Osprey, a Harrier jumpjet and a normal helicopter gunship

Your design is making the rotor (or jet engine idea if you take that up) issue all the worse by the fact that the gatling guns are partly blocking the airflow around the rotor blades, that will make them work very poorly to say the least. I suggest you instead have those gatling guns mounted under those yellow orbs. They won't block the airflow from the rotor from that location, and that's just a better position. If you have them way out on the wingtips, then the recoil from firing just one at a time would spin the aircraft around. And in combat you wouldn't always want to shoot both to balance the recoil. Not many targets really require you to shoot two giant gatling guns at them. The positions currently held by the gatling guns could instead be a pair of hard points, onto which bombs, rockets or missile launchers could be fitted, and perhaps drop tanks for extended range if the aircraft uses a liquid fuel. Since none of those system produce recoil when fired you wouldn't have any trouble employing them in action.

Thanks for the advice.

The spotlight has been removed, it was there for aesthetical impact, but it is really impratical.
I can't have fusion generators on a helicopter, so I just increased the size of the rotors.
The gatling guns have been removed and replaced by railguns mounted on the yellow orbs.
Attached to the rotors there are rocket pods.
Is it overarmed?

Those weapons pods are certainly way too big. I'd say cut it back to two visible weapons on each side. But the pods could be multi level, so the actual armament would be eight or twelve individual rockets/missiles of that size. And of course in an alternative weapons load out, each of those big weapons might be replaced by a multi round launcher for several (or more likely a dozen plus) smaller missiles or rockets if the mission requires blowing up many small things.

I don't know quite how big you intend this craft to be, but those big weapons you've got on it now are probably Maverick sized if the red area is a cockpit for one or two humans. That's a pretty powerful and heavy level of weapon for an attack helicopter, but they would have utility, espically for destroying heavy bunkers and smashing buildings or bridges. But most tasks just wouldn't demand weapons that big.

For example modern day Hellfire with a 20 pound warhead can kill any tank in the world. The Maverick meanwhile has either a 125 or 300 pound warhead depending on the exact model. Though it is also used as an anti tank weapon, it just kills the tanks really extremely dead. Unguidged rockets with warheads in the multi hundred pound range do also exist in real life. Though they are generally only used by the Russians and people using Russian aircraft and weapons, and generally only against softer targets. Though if you hit a tank with that much explosive, even if its not a warhead designed to destroy armor it probuabbly still will kill the vechical.

This little experiment of yours is going to get pwned by the Desensitized Gamer. The DG will simply blast everything in front of him without really caring what it is, or how badly designed the gun is from a realistic standpoint. He'll happily mow down all the puppies and flowers and children, and when asked for his thoughts, will say something like "This game was kinda crappy, but the blood spray was cool."

LordShaithis wrote:This little experiment of yours is going to get pwned by the Desensitized Gamer. The DG will simply blast everything in front of him without really caring what it is, or how badly designed the gun is from a realistic standpoint. He'll happily mow down all the puppies and flowers and children, and when asked for his thoughts, will say something like "This game was kinda crappy, but the blood spray was cool."

And then he'll go back to playing Postal 2.

Heh. But really, drop this on the average gamer with no explanation of what it is, and they'll probably peg it as a shitty FPS game that wants to rile up some free outrage-publicity by having you shoot children.

So how are you actually going to make people play this so intentionally designed piece of shit game? That's the main problem that I see. You try to get people to actually play this, then they'll just tell you to go fuck yourself.

LordShaithis wrote:This little experiment of yours is going to get pwned by the Desensitized Gamer. The DG will simply blast everything in front of him without really caring what it is, or how badly designed the gun is from a realistic standpoint. He'll happily mow down all the puppies and flowers and children, and when asked for his thoughts, will say something like "This game was kinda crappy, but the blood spray was cool."

Well, the dg might not understand, but he will not be able to pwn everything.
EDIT: rocket pods reduced

Looks pretty nice

Sea Skimmer wrote:Looks pretty nice

Thanks.
Are railguns on an helicopter a bad idea?
The recoil would be strong, I fear.

Melchior wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Looks pretty nice

Thanks.
Are railguns on an helicopter a bad idea?
The recoil would be strong, I fear.

Why should you care? I thought you wanted this to be aggravating to play!

"LMAO, IF YOU FIRE THE GUNS, THE HELICOPTER SELF-DESTRUCTS!"

"THE FLAMETHROWER SHOOTS FIRE BACK AT YOU! THIS IS COOL!"

"THE GAME REPRESENTS SUFFERING! IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FUN! WHY DOES NO ONE LOVE MY GAME? "

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Melchior wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Looks pretty nice

Thanks.
Are railguns on an helicopter a bad idea?
The recoil would be strong, I fear.

Why should you care? I thought you wanted this to be aggravating to play!

"LMAO, IF YOU FIRE THE GUNS, THE HELICOPTER SELF-DESTRUCTS!"

"THE FLAMETHROWER SHOOTS FIRE BACK AT YOU! THIS IS COOL!"

"THE GAME REPRESENTS SUFFERING! IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FUN! WHY DOES NO ONE LOVE MY GAME? "

Actually both the helicopter and the flamethrower are AI-exclusive and should work well.

WHOOSH!

That is the sound of my reply flying over your head.

Melchior wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Looks pretty nice

Thanks.
Are railguns on an helicopter a bad idea?
The recoil would be strong, I fear.

A railgun is simply a type of weapon, how much recoil it has depends on how heavy a projectile it throws and at how high a velocity, plus the rate of fire. However I don't see much point to one, a railgun is very poor at firing anything but armor piercing ammunition (this is because it can only fire sub caliber ammunition with a sabot, since the sides of a railgun barrel are flat. That means tiny HE shells, and a gun on a helicopter is going to be far more often used to shoot up soft targets then to engage armor. Conventional existing helicopter cannon already have a fair amount of anti armor power anyway. You would gain the advantage of lighter ammunition since you need no propellant, but the railgun its self would be a heavy and complex addition to the aircraft.

Hey, I have to ask, why do you guys give a shit whether or not his mod is worth playing? He's not asking your opinion, and he clearly doesn't give a shit, so why are you continuing to smash your head against a wall? Do you derive sexual pleasure from being self-important condescending asses?

HemlockGrey wrote:Hey, I have to ask, why do you guys give a shit whether or not his mod is worth playing? He's not asking your opinion, and he clearly doesn't give a shit, so why are you continuing to smash your head against a wall? Do you derive sexual pleasure from being self-important condescending asses?

Why do you have to ask questions like this?

Hemlock, might I direct you to read the Stardestroyer.net banner at the top of the page? You seem to have forgotten what this board's slogan is.

Utsanomiko wrote:

HemlockGrey wrote:Hey, I have to ask, why do you guys give a shit whether or not his mod is worth playing? He's not asking your opinion, and he clearly doesn't give a shit, so why are you continuing to smash your head against a wall? Do you derive sexual pleasure from being self-important condescending asses?

Why do you have to ask questions like this?

Because he's a self-important condescending ass.