Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I remember when TA came out and the complexity was definitely intimidating. I did not get a chance to play enough to truly get comfortable. The Craft series and Command and Conquer were more friendly. My major issues with Craft games were attacks auto hit and storylines. But I have to hand it to Blizzard on Starcraft series: the three races play completely differently yet are very well balanced against each other.

My favorite RTS actually is the original Homeworld. I loved space battles with fighters zooming between capital ships and a 3-d environment.

You've stated the programming is more complicated twice now, without stating any reason why. The next two statements seem particularly random and beside the point as well. I never said they didn't have mass appeal. What I said was, I'm not convinced its down to the the guys who write the code.

Blizzard has its own unique programming code, along with its own unique 3d modelling all developed in house.

All of that is developed by a small group of developers.

Think of 3ds max but 10x more efficient.

Their programming also includes random number generators and random terrain generators as show in diablo 3. Diablo 3 has the most interesting coding ideas put down. Everytime you enter a area something is always different.

There is also randomly generated dunegeons that also change creatures, bosses, etc.

There is also the resource generator etc. Blizzard are masters of RNG. The fact that it runs so smoothly is a staple of their abilities. They do many other programming feats such as their development of WOW and a combination of its quest system. They take ideas from other games and refine them and give them a twist.

In any case, going back to thinking about characters. The thought comes to me, is that in the grand scheme of things, there just aren't that many games released every year. Its probably related to that '80% of everything is rubbish' idea. So many books, TV shows and films in general are released every year that you can spend your entire year just looking at the best 20% of novels and be unaware of the rubbish 80% of them. Even with films, though there are significantly less released, there's usually still one or two 'hidden gems' amongst the major film releases.

Games, if you only count games that the general gaming public are aware of. You could argue that storywise things like 'The Walking Dead' could take up the full allotment of 'not rubbish'.

On the other hand, the futures bright. Traditionally, people weren't aware of the semi-indie games like TWD. Now they're getting more well known as it becomes easier for people to become aware of these games with actual good stories and characters (including introducing more diverse male protagonists). At this point, in the not too distant future, I think big publishers will be galvanized into making unique stories and characters a higher priority.

Agreed.

 Melissia wrote:
For one, it was the first RTS game that tracked actual movement of projectiles over a 3d terrain; it had a much vaster scale than any non-space RTS up to that point; was even easier than starcraft to modify and totally convert in to new games; it had air units that were more than just blimps hovering in the sky (a rarity even to this day; starcraft 2 still hasn't managed it); it had a classic and epic sci-fi backstory; It had true line of sight, with 3d calculations on what provided sight to what; it had deeply customizable AI for individual or groups of units (something which wasn't abnormal back then, but which the 'craft series always lacked); its "flow" economy made the game make much more sense than the standard economies of RTS games, its expansion was perfect and expanded the story and gameplay dramatically; it was the first RTS which had purely water maps, etc etc etc.

I could rant for a while about it, but it's easier to say what it lacks, rather than what was good about it-- and that would be that it lacks defined characters and it lacks an attack-move option. And that was about it really, compared to other games of its time period.

I liked that the Core and Arm had distinct differences, they weren't just a copy of the other.

Naval combat felt a bit clunky but I guess that was realistic also I couldn't build a Millennium battleship without that damn Robbie William song going through my head.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Their programming also includes random number generators

Okay, are you repeating something you only half understood, or what? The only place where random number generators quality do matter cryptography/security. Not exactly Blizzard's core activity. Every where else, good enough is okay, as far as I can tell.
Were you talking about Diablo III authentication process? Because outside of this, I have no idea how having a good random number generator rather than a basic one (or, if Windows has the feature like Linux does, the operating system's random number generator) can help.

Random Number generators (accepting that in a literal sense there is no such thing) are so easy to create most programming languages have a function for it (Rand in C++). Hybrid is 100% correct here.

 LordofHats wrote:
Random Number generators (accepting that in a literal sense there is no such thing) are so easy to create most programming languages have a function for it (Rand in C++). Hybrid is 100% correct here.

True but these are object randoms. Which basically means that any creature can have anything.

This would usually take quite a bit of memory and rendering to do this. So they are doing quite a good job.

The only place where random number generators quality do matter cryptography/security. Not exactly Blizzard's core activity. Every where else, good enough is okay, as far as I can tell.
Were you talking about Diablo III authentication process? Because outside of this, I have no idea how having a good random number generator rather than a basic one (or, if Windows has the feature like Linux does, the operating system's random number generator) can help.

No think about this. As a designer there are areas in the game that constantly change, certain things have this, and sometimes they do not have this.

They have random commands sent through If/else statements.

The fact they also created their own language is enough of a respect to blizzard.

I personally say that anyone saying it is a horrible game company I would like to point to a few companies that deleiever crappy games, with crappy game characters consistently.

I use blizzard as an example of how to appeal to a mass market. They know how to do things. They do many programming deeds extremely well.

They use random number generators to generate items, terrain, monsters. Where many companies struggle I.E. bungie's destiny to even get anywhere close to that.

They are known for making incredibly intelligent AI (play against starcraft 2 insanity bots by yourself) now that doesn't mean that all their work is fantastic I don't think they are the 'best' company. Nor are they the most experienced. But they have been making games for the past two decades, and it shows their experience.

You can criticize, but saying Blizzard is bad because blizzard is bad. Does not mean I will agree with you. When they have many memorable characters, and very well written plots.

Now would I compare them in terms of writing to Bioware? No.

Would I compare them to the programming feats of Valve? No. Because valve are the true masters of programming.

Blizzard is more focused on the art and modelling aspects and cinematics. They are trained as animators not writers. Which is an advantage for games story telling and sometimes not.

 Asherian Command wrote:
True but these are object randoms. Which basically means that any creature can have anything.

This would usually take quite a bit of memory and rendering to do this. So they are doing quite a good job.

You are not really working on the technical side of making games, are you?

 Asherian Command wrote:
They are known for making incredibly intelligent AI (play against starcraft 2 insanity bots by yourself)

Not sure if that changed, but I know that Starcraft II IA used to cheat at higher difficulty level. It just got more mineral or vespene every time a collector brought back some.
Some link after a quick internet search:
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/708342090#2

Not to say Blizzard do not make very good, very polished games, or that they are not top notch on game engines. Just to say I am not sure you really know what you are talking about, when you try to talk about technical computer stuff.

 LordofHats wrote:
Random Number generators (accepting that in a literal sense there is no such thing) are so easy to create most programming languages have a function for it (Rand in C++). Hybrid is 100% correct here.

I created one as a project for an intro-level programming class. They're just a step above "hello, world!", really.

Most AI cheats. And it's not a great feat to program a game to out some blocks together to make a room that seems random but is only a little bit random. These are not technical feats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:


This would usually take quite a bit of memory and rendering to do this.

Having a database of items with a number assigned to them does not take much memory or that much rendering.

The fact they also created their own language is enough of a respect to blizzard.

Not really. Many companies work with their own code, especially since it's been increasingly discussed that no programming language is ideally situated for Video Games (some are proposing that developers get together and create a 'video game' coding language).

I personally say that anyone saying it is a horrible game company I would like to point to a few companies that deleiever crappy games, with crappy game characters consistently.

Like Blizzard?

They use random number generators to generate items, terrain, monsters. Where many companies struggle I.E. bungie's destiny to even get anywhere close to that.

They don't struggle. It's a very easy thing to do. They simply choose not to do it.

You can criticize, but saying Blizzard is bad because blizzard is bad. Does not mean I will agree with you. When they have many memorable characters, and very well written plots.

I'd actually say that they're only memorable because Blizzard was kind of on the leading edge. They were making stories of a complexity that games hadn't really seen before*, but in the grand scheme of things were ultimately not quite that great. Blizzard is very derivative. So is GW, but GW manages to have a certain flair that helps make all their derivative stuff feel fresh even when its not. Blizzard has a knack for fine polish, but not much talent for originality. Hell, they've even started deriving from themselves. SCII is little more than SCI with nicer rendering.

They're the Steve Jobs of Gaming. Marketing masters who can convince you they're a lot more brilliant than they really are

*Not even3 a complexity really, just a presentation. A lot like Metal Gear in that respect, in that they could make a very cinematic experience.

I kinda have to agree, I just can't help but reply. "But, so does Minecraft."

I mean, I don't work in computer gaming, but I do work in Enterprise IT and I do get sort of the sense of 'knowing enough knowledge to be dangerous.' Well, not dangerous, but at that point, where someone thinks they know a lot of things about it, but not really.

Like, I'd agree with you that Valve are probably the 'true masters' of computer gaming programming. But that's going to be more related to creating and enhancing the Source engine than anything else, I'd warrant. - But then, you have to factor in Frostbite now as well. That's the sort of thing that I'd see as 'impressive programming.'


Valve are also known more externally to businesses thanks to the publishing of their Valve Staff handbook. Admittedly, noone, as far as I know, has really implemented what they've done to any real success, but it's provided a jumping off points to some other ideas. - Particularly with 'Innovation Friday' type ideas.

Let's be honest, what's miraculous about the Source engine is that it works. It's like a tower of duct tape.

 Melissia wrote:
I created one as a project for an intro-level programming class. They're just a step above "hello, world!", really.

A basic one, maybe. A cryptography-paranoid-level one is hard, though.
Because a mistake can have terrible, terrible consequences.

Do like random.org and use atmospheric noise.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I created one as a project for an intro-level programming class. They're just a step above "hello, world!", really.

A basic one, maybe. A cryptography-paranoid-level one is hard, though.
Because a mistake can have terrible, terrible consequences.

One suitable for a video game.

 Compel wrote:
I kinda have to agree, I just can't help but reply. "But, so does Minecraft."

I mean, I don't work in computer gaming, but I do work in Enterprise IT and I do get sort of the sense of 'knowing enough knowledge to be dangerous.' Well, not dangerous, but at that point, where someone thinks they know a lot of things about it, but not really.

Like, I'd agree with you that Valve are probably the 'true masters' of computer gaming programming. But that's going to be more related to creating and enhancing the Source engine than anything else, I'd warrant. - But then, you have to factor in Frostbite now as well. That's the sort of thing that I'd see as 'impressive programming.'


Valve are also known more externally to businesses thanks to the publishing of their Valve Staff handbook. Admittedly, noone, as far as I know, has really implemented what they've done to any real success, but it's provided a jumping off points to some other ideas. - Particularly with 'Innovation Friday' type ideas.

I mainly saying that because the 2nd source engine came out a while ago. In terms of game companies The biggest makers of great engines in house is up in the air. Frostbite is not the best engine there might be something currently in the works.


Can I steer this back onto male characters or no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
One suitable for a video game.

Once you figure out the other side of how to implement it and program it in such a way that it makes sense then yeah sure.

Blizzard created the random item generator way back during the 90s. Their blue and yellow items and random subsets within it.

You are not really working on the technical side of making games, are you?

Yes and no. I work on both sides. There are extremely complicated bits in Blizzard games that people at my school like our alumni leaders have no how blizzard did it.

You can criticize, but saying Blizzard is bad because blizzard is bad. Does not mean I will agree with you. When they have many memorable characters, and very well written plots.

I like Blizzard products for the most part, hell I've probably put more hours into their games than any other one company. Still of all the merits you could give their games "Well written" is not one of them. As writing goes they're somewhere above Tommy Wisseau, but somewhere below your average Arnie movie. Probably somewhere around how to kill a mockingbird level.


Essssenceeeee
Essssenceeeee
Essssenceeeee

 Chongara wrote:

You can criticize, but saying Blizzard is bad because blizzard is bad. Does not mean I will agree with you. When they have many memorable characters, and very well written plots.

I like Blizzard products for the most part, hell I've probably put more hours into their games than any other one company. Still of all the merits you could give their games "Well written" is not one of them. As writing goes they're somewhere above Tommy Wisseau, but somewhere below your average Arnie movie. Probably somewhere around how to kill a mockingbird level.


Essssenceeeee
Essssenceeeee
Essssenceeeee

Err. Have you played their older stuff? I am talking about that stuff. Not the newer stuff. As a company I think they have gotten worse overtime in terms of writing, but in terms of modelling not really.

(Except for reaper of souls, because feth you all it was a great game.)

Don't always put too much fair in 'alumni leaders' at school / college.

Back in my business networking classes at uni, my lecturer was prone to tinfoil hat paranoia. They seemed somewhat odd but perfectly plausible at the time. It was only until actually entering the world of employment that I worked out just how tinfoil-ey they were.

In any case. I can't help but think we've mostly exhausted the topic after 14 pages.

Though there's some good, interesting male characters out there, there's just not enough. However, things are slowly improving as time goes on, with examples shown as "Spec Ops: The Line" plus I believe the Walking Dead series. Until they become more common, it's probably best to show support for those games that DO have interesting characters, male or female and, possibly, if you're so inclined, let them know about this.

As, ultimately, I do genuinely think that gaming in general, isn't inherently prejudiced in any way and it has very much been a case of years built up upon years of following the money and the audience.

However, the audience is far more diverse now and far more vocal and I do think companies know that on some level. It's just going to take time for things to permeate through and the ship is changing course. It's just a bloody big ship and is going to take a while to turn.

Overall, I think Gaming has a bright future ahead of it.

Don't always put too much fair in 'alumni leaders' at school / college

Noted. Except one of them.... Err.. well... They replicated something that would get them into pixar no problem. Some of them are quite talented. We only have 130 people in this program.

And only 1% are competent writers.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Once you figure out the other side of how to implement it and program it in such a way that it makes sense then yeah sure.

Precisely. From the coding point of view, it is really not that hard. That is really not what you should point to when arguing that Blizzard is good at programming, or that programming is important. Especially not when saying programming is important, because really it is the opposite in this case: designing how the system will work, and setting the right values is the real difficulty in arpg.

 Asherian Command wrote:

You are not really working on the technical side of making games, are you?

Yes and no. I work on both sides.

I am teaching computer engineering to third year college students this year. I have a lot of trouble believing you are fluent with this kind of stuff, given how misguided your statement about technical stuff are. My students may not be the brightest genius ever, but I sure do not expect them to believe that the Diablo loot system is hard to implement! Hard to conceive, maybe. Hard to tune right, sure, that is a given. But hard to implement?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Do like random.org and use atmospheric noise.

And how do you measure atmospheric noise?
You know, once you start requiring special, dedicated hardware just to get random numbers, it is a proof that this is hard. Not impossible, sure, but some real issue nonetheless.
I remember when Debian thought it was easy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generator_attack

Not to mention that even atmospheric noise probably isn't completely random. It's just that no one happens to have the key or seed since it originates in nature rather than human made computation.