S! All!
I guess I'll start this thread by continuing to point out that Lexx_Luther refuses to debate rationally, preferring to create his own version of 'the other side' by misquoting, and then by making personal attacks. What is the motivation behind that Lexx? The best way to deal with thest kinds of tactics is to point out that they are being used - I'm going to continue accusing Lexx of using these tactics until he stops using them.
To Lexx's credit, he shows the skill of a politician in creating misquotes and clouding issues!
Here are his latest jabs:
WallDog [page 2]::
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Better Programming' is a cop-out answer. No matter how good the programming is or how strong the AI is, you can always say that if it was 'better' then things would be 'better.' That's a circular logic that just can't stand on its own. Current technology doesn't support 'better' as you envision it, Lexx.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WallDog [page 3]::
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what can we do? Well, we can keep trying to 'get blood from a rock' and watch our genre shrink while other genres grow, or we can try to program things better...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lexx calls that a contradiction. It's easy to find contradictions like this in long posts, particularly when you are creative in taking quotes out-of-context! In the first quote I said that continiously calling for 'better programming' for AI a cop-out. In the second quote I call for programming things 'better.' It sure does sound like I want things both ways...
...until you read the ENTIRE second quote - including the parts Lexx chooses to omit! Here is the whole thing:
That is not to say that you should't try to make 'better' AI, but it is to say that we should recognize that no matter how 'good' we make it, AI will never be 'good enough.'
So what can we do? Well, we can keep trying to 'get blood from a rock' and watch our genre shrink while other genres grow, or we can try to program things better, focusing more on experiences and less on pre-concieved notions of what constitutes 'online' or 'offline.' If we can break-down those traditional barriers we can start to experiment with environments that are neither 'online' nor 'offline,' but really a mix between the two. And then we can start to do some really intersting things like use real people when possible for the 'AI' portion of an offline campaign.
Not much of a contradiction when you read the whole thing. Both quotes carry the exact same theme - that 'better' computer AI is not by itself the answer.
In fact, I've been VERY consistent throughout. If you read all of my posts and do not read any of Lexx's, you'll see that. Lexx is very talented as a 'spin doctor' but at the end of the day it is still 'spin.'
Jeez Lexx - your misquotes are intentional. You can't win with a legitimate debate, so you resort to tricks and wordgames. Those tactics are only effective until someone points out that you are using them. Move past it.
OK.. Now that I've gotten that out of the way..
I'm really not all that concerned about 'giving away' the idea. I would like the opportunity to build this myself, but I'm a realist. The idea of taking an IT Manager out of the manafacturing world and giving him millions of dollars to build a flight sim will be a VERY hard pill to swallow for the publishing houses. It is very likely that I will not be able to get enough funding to start this project. I'll finish my full business plan and present it to venture capitalists and publishing houses, but it is likely I will not get any serious investment. It costs a lot of money to build a flight sim and I'm not willing to start this venture unless I get enough funding to make a legitimate attempt. I have a family to feed. I can't afford to take the kinds of risks associated shoe-string development budgets.
So what am I after then if I probably won't be able to build it? There are two other possibilities - one is that some existing development company will like the idea and decide that I am the right person to do it. I'd then be doing it as an employee in someone else's company.
The other possibility is that a development company (like the one that made WoW) might read this thread and say 'I can do that.' They will then steal my idea and run with it. That isn't really that big a deal to me. I'd prefer to do it myself (and think I would do a wonderful job!) but really my priority is in seeing a game like this come about. I'm much less concerned with who builds it than I am with seeing it happen.
What do I forsee for the future of simming? I forsee further development along the lines of 'Joint Operations' style games. I think the 'Massive Multiplayer Online War' concept represents the future of combat sims in general. It's tough to do a 'war' with a first-person shooter though. Even games like Joint Operations don't really have the feel of a real war. For that you need a real front line with missions that are created to impact the front and thus the war. Nobody has done that yet, but that is the direction I think things are heading.
Flight simulations are the perfect environment for such an endeavor. What do you do in a flight sim? You take off, fly a mission, and land. Even on dogfight servers you have some semblance of this. Take that and apply the 'massive multiplayer online war' to it, but spread it out over a wider front and make REAL missions that have a REAL impact on the war. Don't just have 'objective points' that change hands back and forth! Make a real strategic environment and let the cyber pilots have an impact on what happens. Think of it like 'Joint Operations meets Panzer General meets Red Baron 3D'.
I'm not going to re-hash the whole concept again here though. There is a seperate thread dedicated to that idea. Suffice it to say that I forsee options that will allow pilots to fly what will be essentially 'offline' campaigns using elements from the 'Massive Multiplayer Online War,' but doing so in such a way that it would still represent what is traditionally looked at as an 'offline' experience.
To me, it is all about the experiences you provide for the players. We are rapidly reaching the point where the average player won't care whether they are 'online' or 'offline' anymore. We should focus more on the actual experiences provided and less on how we provide those experiences. Once we take that perceptual step and focus on generating an experience rather than being 'offline' or 'online', we can do some very cool things.
More than that - the concept of taking online and offline elements and mixing them together is one that can be looked at globally. Any sim could do this. We have in the past always thought of simming as either an offline or an online experience. Sure - games usually support both - but no flight sim has ever been developed that allowed you to use elements of both AT THE SAME TIME.
Why do gaming environments have to be purely 'online' or purely 'offline'? Why can't we use different elements from both at the same time?
As for being an IT professonal, I think that is a strength. It allows me to bridge the gap between what would be 'cool' (which as a flight sim enthusiast I think I have a feel for) and what can actually be done! Lexx_Luther would like people to forget that I am a flight sim enthusiast AS WELL AS an IT professional. Lexx is also guilty of painting his view of 'IT Professionals' with a wide brush, applying negativity to ALL of us when really his comments probably only apply to a few...
Lexx - your turn... What are you going to misquote this time?