Cube as a Storytelling engine?

by shahar2k on 09/14/2004 22:30, 15 messages, last message: 10/05/2004 01:58, 1634 views, last view: 04/30/2024 03:53

I\'ve always been intrigued by unusual gameplay modes, and I\'ve wondered for awhile now whether it would be possible to do what is basically a text adventure in graphical form.

Cube comes in because it allows for the easy creation of simple environments.

Basically I was working out what type of \"classes\" would be needed for a storytelling engine, and it comes down to the following:

Verbs - Actions that the player can do, perhaps accesible by a right click menu (examine, use, throw, so on)

Items - Objects that have their own set of verbs, these verbs can be global (examine, throw) or specific to the object (a piece of food might have \"eat\" as a verb)

Containers - Objects that can contain Items whithin them, possibly can be moved themselves but I dont see it.

Portals - Objects that connect one level to the next

Characters - These are the hardest to implement. characters can be given patroll paths, dialogue trees, and their own inventory.


The general idea is to create a series of cube levels, and then allow the player to create puzzles, and gameplay similar to old graphical adventures. a kind of adventure creation kit for 3D games. Perhaps even allow cube to operate as a limited MUD or graphical chatroom....

I doubt this will ever be made, as i dont have time and the programming knowlege to do this (I am a modeler/animator, i\'ve worked on several mods and a few commercial projects)

still, what else would you do to turn cube into a sory engine?

   Board Index   

#1: ..

by pushplay on 09/15/2004 06:08

If you're serious you would want to look at an opensource Z interpreter like frotz. The Infocom games were pretty slick.

reply to this message

#2: ..

by sinsky on 09/15/2004 14:00

I've never seen any text game interpreter except TADS. I've been playing with it for a while so I'll give some info and the URL:

http://www.tads.org

The thing I liked most was one could use just some HTML and JavaScript experience to make a game, complete with sounds, music and images, stuff that doesn't have an easy solution if you want to be a cross-browser and cross-platform guy. Of course, TADS isn't 3D, but enormous amount of work on it has been done, and a lot of people love it.

reply to this message

#3: see? I told you

by The Doctor on 09/17/2004 21:59

Translation:

He wants to make a game-maker program.

********

Why don'tyou Cube people ever learn? The comunity is loking to you for what they need. Your engine can GAIN developpers through this kind of project. Instead, you will probably ingonre him, or be sarcastic. He will most likely move on to find an engine with people more considerate and willing.

You had better start looking elsewhere, where the community is not hostile top all those hoping to further develop thei engine. Maybe you could even start your own project. I doubt you will get any help here. I *would* help you if i could, better than what most of the people will offer you though.

reply to this message

#4: ..

by shahar2k on 09/18/2004 01:02

thanks doc, uhm yah that's my idea, It actually started by thinking of a way to create an object oriented text adventure witha mouse interface (think HTML links leading to the portals/containers/characters/objects) but then I thought it'd be better if each of those had a graphical representation as well...

Honestly I have little hope for it here, cube is not the most extensible game. Yah the source code is out, but there arent a WHOLE lot of people working on making it something OTHER than what it is, I know, I've been with the cube community for a long time now, I've also been on a few game development projects... most unsuccesful, a couple came out but I know how hard it is to make games first hand.

Finally... I personally have little time right now, I cant commit to a project untill I stablize my school schedule which has me getting roughly 4 hours of sleep a night working to keep up with the homework load, fun as it may be.

thanks for the offer of help, maybe once I gather some free time I will be more serious... breath holding not required

reply to this message

#5: Re: see? I told you

by sinsky on 09/18/2004 02:38, refers to #3

I wouldn't call this community hostile. My post about TADS has nothing to do with Cube, if they were, it would have been erased by now. And if you really want a cube storytelling engine, then no doubt you are ready to pay for it, because people here do what they want and you want them to do something else.

reply to this message

#6: ..

by pushplay on 09/18/2004 02:42

I find it amazing how "a text adventure in graphical form" translates to "He wants to make a game-maker program." Given that I'm not psychic I thought the advice was pretty good.

I reserve the right to:
a) not tell people Cube is the best tool for the job when it isn't
b) give no help to projects I don't find interesting

reply to this message

#7: Amen Push...

by Pxtl on 09/18/2004 05:41

While I do want a game maker proggie (and this isn't idle speculation - I just need the time on my hands which will never come), I would design it wholly differently. My plan for a game maker program would be:
a) focus on multiplayer online gaming. Only AI critters are simple monsters, sentry guns, hostages, helpers, pets, etc. - stupid things.
b) peer-to-peer file hosting auto-download system so you don't bog down the server when you join and are missing packages. All happens transparently under the covers using a local archive of md5-keyed data.
c) simple, semi-crippled mod system that gives mappers just enough power to make interesting gametypes and weapons, but not enough for complete freedom (which overcomplicates the game) - focus on common design patterns rather than generalist idealism. Like StarCraft's scripted-map-editor, but for FPS games.
d) ideally, some sort of hardcore sandboxed scripted mod system so that real coders could make more difficult extensions, and sandboxed so that these extensions could be similarly distributed over the p2p filesystem like any other mod.

Then I would hop from server to server, trying out all the bizarre and oddball gametypes that everyone comes up with. Sure, most of them would be derivative crap - that happens in any easy-to-mod environment - but it would be worth it for the fun gems. You'd quickly need a content-rating-system to help let the air bubble to the top.

But that's just my personal favoured-feature-list. It reflects my tastes: single player is masturbation, and multiplayer should always be an exciting and new experience.

reply to this message

#8: simple, semi-crippled mod system

by pushplay on 09/18/2004 07:48

That's smart. When designing a complex system it's important to consider what sort of limitations you're willing to impose to make your work managable. Carmack talks about it a lot and it's the best advice I've heard come out of his mouth.

reply to this message

#9: Re: see? I told you

by Aardappel_ on 09/18/2004 21:42, refers to #3

I find it amazing that people always assume that the number one goal for an open source author is to make their program as "popular" as possible, and hence, to cater to everyone's wishes and implement lots of features.

With cube, this couldn't be further from the truth. I personally develop software being driven from what _I_ like to see. I then release it, under the assumption that something that I think really kicks ass, others may enjoy it too. And at half a million downloads, Cube seems to be doing ok in popularity given that I only cater to myself.

More importantly maybe, people that understand the design of Cube know that Cube would never have existed in the first place if it had been a project to make a popular game engine / game creation kit with tons of features. It would never have been finished. What pushplay/carmack says applies very heavily to Cube, some of its design decisions are very strong imposed limitations. Hence its success.

reply to this message

#10: Re: see? I told you

by pushplay on 09/19/2004 23:42, refers to #9

I think the "gift culture" explanation for open source work has become an unconscious assumption. The most successful open source projects (and thus the ones everyone knows of), crossed a threshold where the author stopped doing it just for himself and started doing it more for other people. I think it's a step most authors don't want to take, but we hear about it happening more than not.

reply to this message

#11: ..

by lethedethius...2 on 09/20/2004 03:48

they have game maker programs...
game maker 2.0 infact -_-

reply to this message

#12: ..

by entrunner7 on 09/21/2004 04:01

game maker 2.0 is pretty limited, but more open than most engines, which is depressing. amatuers like me haven't a chance in hell of getting off the ground without serious help, which is in great demand but not available.

reply to this message

#13: Re: ..

by sinsky on 09/21/2004 20:29, refers to #12

Maybe if you can't do it on your own it's a bad idea counting entirely on help. I'd recommend the new version of Blender for a "storytelling" 3D game but I'm no expert and to tell the truth, I actually haven't used Blender for anything yet. But if you're still reading this, here are some links:

http://blender.org

http://blender3d.org/cms/Blender.31.0.html
- blender downloads

http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Game_engine_with_2_25_physics.212.0.html
- some game demos, it's possible to learn a lot about blender only by examining how these work

The last commercial version of Blender (2.20 I think, nowadays free) is still best for a game project. Although the latest version (34) can make runtime executables gameplay is not stable yet, some of the demos won't work. The skategirl one for example works but I remember one time skating, skating, skating, oops! falling off the map:) But it might be fine for more, umm.. "static" storytelling. Also 2.20 uses the FMOD sound library which I personally prefer to avoid (it's a fine library, just bad luck on my side thinking for a while it's free for commercial use), otherwise I think 2.20 is a nice choice too for an amateur project.

reply to this message

#14: Re: ..

by sinsky on 09/21/2004 20:36, refers to #13

Sorry it's not 2.20, it's 2.25, at:

http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Older_versions.283.0.html

reply to this message

#15: game

by edison on 10/05/2004 01:58

i like game action

reply to this message

   Board Index