I was reading how stars age and die in this month's Scientific American being also interested in astronomy it got me thinking...

The game is called Sol. A 3d game. Uses all the technology available. Lets leave that aside for a moment. Consider the thought.

There is a huge sun at the center. Its hot, its bubbling, its spewing out gases, solar wind (you cant see - maybe u can - havent thought about it yet), Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) etc. You are some guy orbiting the sun. Pretty close. Closer than mercury. Closer than anything else than can orbit. First person viewpoint. If you fall into the sun, game over. You just try to stay in orbit. You only see the sun and all its processes all the time. You are flying. And you must keep flying. Magnetic loops will try to pull you in, CMEs will alter the ebb and flow of solar wind and you must surf cleverly to stay afloat. The sun doesnt care of your existence. Its busy ageing and dieing. As it ages, it gets tempestuous and spasmodic. Nuclear reactions happen in a hurry and the effects make it difficult for you to stay afloat. You complete the game when it ages into a red giant and explodes to become a huge planetary nebula which only you witness bcos you complete the game. It turns into a white dwarf and then bcomes blue. You die with it when it explodes. Game over. Universe lives on.

Basically everything in the game is simulated - the sun and its processes using solar physics (lots of fluid dynamics), colors are tuned to temperature, gameplay will be a combo of physical accuracy with some creative liberties. Pixel shaders, vertex shaders are unashamedly pressed into service. This is not aimed at retired oldies or soccer moms with a pentium 233 or whatever. True indie. Show the finger to the world type indie. "Have it" type indie. Come on. Fight. Go indie. Go!

Forget whether this game is possible. Forget whether it will make money. Lets leave the -ves aside. I know it. You know it. What do you think? Help me flesh out this idea please. Suggestions of things to read/research? Whatever. Throw it in.

As a "realistic" game - sorry, but I'd rather have a game that takes less than four billion years to play.

As an abstract game - maybe, depending on how it's done.

It's not like this is it?

http://www.miniclip.com/gravity.htm

http://www.miniclip.com/gravity.htm
Certainly not. Thats Lunar Lander type trash.

Obviously the game doesnt take 4 billion years to play ;) Using the concepts as a starting point, go abstract would probably be it...

Sounds kinda boring at the moment, sorry :( What if it became some kind of mission though where you had to do analysis of the Sun? So maybe there were various "levels" where you'd get a task assigned to you to analyze some particular aspect of the sun and report back before a certain time? So fighting cosmic forces becomes only part of the game, for the most part you're running your spaceship and analysis tools and completing tasks. Maybe instead of being alone in your spaceship, it's just a monitoring device that you're controlling from afar by remote control? (Otherwise would people really live that long?)

There is a huge sun at the center. Its hot, its bubbling, its spewing out gases, solar wind (you cant see - maybe u can - havent thought about it yet)

Gases & Solor wind - Eeewww!
:)

Sorry, couldn't resist!

This is not aimed at retired oldies or soccer moms with a pentium 233 or whatever.

Hey, my developing machine is a P233, so watch it :p

I don't like the original idea in this thread - in my book it is guilty of quite a few capital sins of indie game developing: relying on technology, relying on complex simulation, relying on realism. Perhaps I should add "not considering gameplay before anything else".

Technology is bad period. It wastes time, and yields little while shrinking your user base as well.

Using complex simulation is bad in the same way technology is, but it is also makes you lose your control on game design. Even worse, it makes it very difficult to explain the game to your players.

Realism is the perfectly wrong approach to game design. Games are not fun because of how much of reality they simulate, but on how much they simplify reality. Graphical realism is the notable exception, but you may notice that while games become more and more graphically realistic, their control systems and gameplay don't do the same. (e.g. mouse + direction keys in FPS games)

So basically, I'm saying the idea on this thread isn't really an idea at all. A good game idea needs to answer some questions: why is this game easy to implement, why is the game fun to play, can a player who never saw the game just fire it up and have fun? (Someone will soon correct me and add "will it sell?", but oh well :rolleyes: )

Certainly not. Thats Lunar Lander type trash.
Hey!... some people grew up on Lunar Lander. One of my more favorite adaptations as well as The Lander (aka LanderX or Gravity).
Moolander (http://www.arcadetown.com/moolander/index.asp)

I personally absolutely love games with high tech mechanics but they don't seem to do so well. The Lander was a big lesson here as we thought was a great game but was a dud popularity wise. Also, we've seen games that work on low end video cards do the best sales wise, Platypus and Betty's Beer Bar for example.

Then again, popularity doesn't seem hugely important as some games get tons of downloads and few sales. High quality, right target market, and compelling user experience are most important.

I did something remotely similar several years ago. It was orbital combat simulator with complete Newtonian physics and very weak ship drive (analog of ion drive). Rasing/lowering orbit, changing it's excentricitet and inclination was fun. Ships were armed with "attractor beam" , you could attract enemy ship, it's speed will decrease, orbit lower and it will risk crushing into planet if not evaded. However I completly failed with enemy AI, mathematic of optimal orbital movement and orbital intercept was more than I could afford with 500mhz CPU. Dumb AI was just crushing in the planet while attacking me and couldn't close on me while I was changing orbital inclination in any sane time. I dropped the project then I understood I cant solve the problem...

I never play games that require an understanding of the word 'excentricitet' ;)

There's nothing wrong with your ideas, or doing a game that simulates realistic environments, in my book. Diodor, I have a hard time agreeing with a number of your points.

"Technology is bad period. It wastes time, and yields little while shrinking your user base as well."

This isn't true at all. After all, what keeps a number of hardcore gamers from making the transition to the indie market, and it's sometimes quirky gameplay types? It's technology. If you can match the big-name titles in graphical appearance, you may just grab a few guys with big-rig systems, who are looking for something... different. Don't forget- a game can have great technology behind it, but also be quite scaleable for different systems.

"Games are not fun because of how much of reality they simulate, but on how much they simplify reality."

Not true if the gamers you're targeting want a reality simulation (or close to it, since we are after all talking about flying around planets). I know for myself, there are times I want as much of a reality simulator I can get. Simplicity be damned. Watching the simulation in action brings me enjoyment.

"their control systems and gameplay don't do the same"

That's because people are used to the control schemes. They've become a standard, just like the way you control a car. Cars could be far easier vehicles to move than they currently are, and roadrules could be much better as well. But, no one aims to change them (except by small increments, of course) because they are a standard, and people are familiar with them.

"A good game idea needs to answer some questions: why is this game easy to implement..."

Why does a good game need to be easy to impliment? :) Some games will require a lot of work, no matter what way you look at it.

I know what you're saying by the above points, and they are good things to consider if you're aiming solely at the indie market. I agree with you completely that considering gameplay should be the first thing looked into, as opposed to an idea. After all, I don't think many gamers spend their time looking for a good idea. They look for entertainment :)

[...]
Using complex simulation is bad in the same way technology is, but it is also makes you lose your control on game design. Even worse, it makes it very difficult to explain the game to your players.
[...]

Nah it's not. At least not generally. Physics can easily get highly compicated, but at the same time they are somewhat easy to grasp for the players. After all we have to deal with physical effects on a dayly basis ;)

And other kinds of complex simulations have their place, too. It can yield alot of replay value, but at the same time you'll lose alot of control the outcome (as you already pointed out). If there is a way to abuse the system someone will find it and in most cases it tears everything apart.

Original post by Reactor
Diodor, I have a hard time agreeing with a number of your points.

Excellent! :)

If you can match the big-name titles in graphical appearance, you may just grab a few guys with big-rig systems, who are looking for something... different.

Yes, but can you? (more acurately, can you afford to?) And is getting a few big-rigs worth losing the little-rigs, especially as it is much harder to make a game that looks comparatively good on a good computer than on a slow one?

Don't fight the big guys at their own game, that's what my pa' always said... wait, I used to say that :D

Not true if the gamers you're targeting want a reality simulation (or close to it, since we are after all talking about flying around planets). I know for myself, there are times I want as much of a reality simulator I can get. Simplicity be damned. Watching the simulation in action brings me enjoyment.

Gamers dont have a clue what they want. That's the designers job. Now that I've put that aside, I will admit that gamers do want their games to give the illusion of reality (which has led to an overemphasis on graphical realism), as long as they don't have to do the smallest amount of work. E.g. you can't expect your gamers to read more than one line of text every few minutes or so. Graphical realism is cool because the player can simply watch it (no work involved), but when it comes to gameplay it's a different matter.

That's because people are used to the control schemes. They've become a standard, just like the way you control a car. Cars could be far easier vehicles to move than they currently are, and roadrules could be much better as well. But, no one aims to change them (except by small increments, of course) because they are a standard, and people are familiar with them.

Exactly. People hate learning (a special case of work). That's why everything the player must do in a game (the gameplay) must be as simple as possible. And that's why the controls in all games don't become ever more complicated like the graphics do. The usual arrow keys + mouse for movement in a FPS is already too complicated for all but the hardcore gamers.

Throwing complexity at players may seem as the natural way to evolve this game or that, but it is a sure way to lose them as customers.

Why does a good game need to be easy to impliment?

Only if you want to implement it. :)

Some games will require a lot of work, no matter what way you look at it.

Yes. Stay away from trying to make such games.

I agree with you completely that considering gameplay should be the first thing looked into, as opposed to an idea.

Gameplay is part of the idea. A roadmap to implementing the game is part of the idea. Without them you don't have an idea.

After all, I don't think many gamers spend their time looking for a good idea.

Actually, a minor trait of a good game idea is to have a short description that will make gamers think "this is a good idea". That's what makes them download the demo ;)

oNyx
Nah it's not. At least not generally. Physics can easily get highly compicated, but at the same time they are somewhat easy to grasp for the players. After all we have to deal with physical effects on a dayly basis

And other kinds of complex simulations have their place, too. It can yield alot of replay value, but at the same time you'll lose alot of control the outcome (as you already pointed out). If there is a way to abuse the system someone will find it and in most cases it tears everything apart.

The fun thing about games is you can't say a single thing about them without getting contradicted by some exception.

There are many rules of game design, and most of them can be broken in a way or another (in fact that's the job of the game designer). IMO, "complexity is bad" is one such rule.

Physics is a good example of breaking that rule, but only as long as it stays easy to grasp. A game like the bridge builder from chronic logic is brililliant not as much because of their math skills but because they allow the player to try his hand at architecture without as much as solving one equation.

Likewise, games like Civ or AoE or MOO are exceedingly complex, but there's method to their insanity. These games are designed to make it very easy for the player to deal with all the complexity, and this is their real strength and genius, and not the complexity itself.

Thanks for the replies Diodor :)

"more acurately, can you afford to?"

Sure, I can. But, I'm not sure everyone can.


"And is getting a few big-rigs worth losing the little-rigs, especially as it is much harder to make a game that looks comparatively good on a good computer than on a slow one?"

I'm not sure I agree with you about what it is that's easier to make out of the two, but I do agree- it is yet to be seen if it's worth gaining some of the hardcore market, instead of targeting the lower-end gamers.


"Don't fight the big guys at their own game..."

And don't forget, there's a middle ground out there too.


"...you can't expect your gamers to read more than one line of text every few minutes or so. Graphical realism is cool because the player can simply watch it (no work involved), but when it comes to gameplay it's a different matter."

I think you have a funny idea about what *all* gamers are like. Gamers are people, and people have a wide variety of differing tastes. Are you sure you're not projecting your own feelings about gaming onto the average gamer? ;)


"Yes. Stay away from trying to make such games."

Why? Imagine if the makers of the biggest games in the world had that attitude. Nothing would get made! Again are you projecting your own development situation onto every other game developer?


"Actually, a minor trait of a good game idea is to have a short description that will make gamers think "this is a good idea". That's what makes them download the demo"

A good point! I'm glad you mentioned that.


Btw, sorry for hijacking this thread for a point-by-point discussion.

@diodor - ah you pounced on your chance didnt you? :) with that kind of logical analysis we will be only making solitaire for 20 more years and then wonder why indie game development sucks. i said please flesh out the idea not debate whether its practical. the last thing i wanted to hear is a lecture on what should be made into a game and what shouldnt. i assume you like the premise and are suggesting additions, substractions etc to it. benefiting my thought process and maybe yours by 0.0001%.

@SyneRyder thanks for the idea. Unfortunately it succumbs to the trend that games have to be treadmills or taskmasters to be interesting. Tasks that must be acheived to gain some virtual goo to advance to next level. Other than impressive images and the awe inspiring distance/size of celestial objects I personally find astronomy - measuring the composition of rocks and related crap - mind numbingly boring.

@serg3d, onyx, reactor - thanks and agree.

guys dont knock simulation so quickly - its a great hope for indies. with limited parameters and clever algorithms you can produce a lot of breathtaking complexity and yeah fight the big boys if you want. this complexity need not be visual complexity alone. programmers dont need artists that much with a well wired sim going. even sound can be synthesised using the processes. i once saw a site which had mp3 of suns's acoustics.

sun is used as an inspiration & a premise. i can go abstract not necessarily realistic. this doesnt have to be a simulation requiring supercomputing resources. we can keep it simple. imagine the unique opportunities

- each time the player starts the game its different - the parameters are randomly set - the common point being you are orbiting it and the sun is dieing.

- each ending is different. the way the sun explodes is a summation of its processes which are setup different each time so the xplosion into planetary nebula is different and uniquely beautiful each time. and you really dont know when it will explode. you can only take an educated guess looking at it. you hope you can last long enough to to see it explode. that is exciting. u also die when it explodes. u want your death! u want it to end. u want to complete the game - know that you completed the game.

There is a huge sun at the center. Its hot, its bubbling, its spewing out gases, solar wind (you cant see - maybe u can - havent thought about it yet), Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) etc. You are some guy orbiting the sun. Pretty close. Closer than mercury. Closer than anything else than can orbit. First person viewpoint. If you fall into the sun, game over. You just try to stay in orbit. You only see the sun and all its processes all the time. You are flying. And you must keep flying. Magnetic loops will try to pull you in, CMEs will alter the ebb and flow of solar wind and you must surf cleverly to stay afloat. The sun doesnt care of your existence. Its busy ageing and dieing. As it ages, it gets tempestuous and spasmodic. Nuclear reactions happen in a hurry and the effects make it difficult for you to stay afloat. You complete the game when it ages into a red giant and explodes to become a huge planetary nebula which only you witness bcos you complete the game. It turns into a white dwarf and then bcomes blue. You die with it when it explodes. Game over. Universe lives on.


This sounds more like something to "watch" than "play". You seem to be very into the whole "stars dying" thing as you mentioned, however, I think this would make a very very boring game. I am sure you'd enjoy it because you'd be watching the star dying as you try to keep yourself alive, but as a person not that interested in stars or watching them die before my eyes, I'd be bored to tears...

Maybe you should make a demo a'la 80s... It is not a game per se, but it is like a game minus the player playing... Demos used to be big back in the C64 and Amiga times. I wonder where they went... It could be a good starting point if you never tackled game programming before. If you really really like it, you could turn the demo into a game perhaps.

Have fun with it if you decide to make it happen! :)

Original post by Reactor

I think you have a funny idea about what *all* gamers are like. Gamers are people, and people have a wide variety of differing tastes. Are you sure you're not projecting your own feelings about gaming onto the average gamer?

"All gamers _hate_ work". It's not _true_, but it is a _useful_ assumption. As I've said, it's quite hard to say anything at all about games that is everywhere and always _true_, so why bother. Useful will do.


Why? Imagine if the makers of the biggest games in the world had that attitude. Nothing would get made!

People would play more chess? :P

Again are you projecting your own development situation onto every other game developer?

Yes, I am. In a way, that almost goes without saying.

Original post by jaggu
@diodor - ah you pounced on your chance didnt you? with that kind of logical analysis we will be only making solitaire for 20 more years and then wonder why indie game development sucks. i said please flesh out the idea not debate whether its practical. the last thing i wanted to hear is a lecture on what should be made into a game and what shouldnt. i assume you like the premise and are suggesting additions, substractions etc to it. benefiting my thought process and maybe yours by 0.0001%.

I like the solar system theme. My next game is set in a planetary system, and possibly the one after that. I don't like graphical realism, or gameplay based on a physical simulation, realistic or not - I don't see either of these leading to good games. The gameplay for my games will rely on turn based economy growth simulation, Master of Orion style, and turn based trading (Pirates style)

As for debating practicalities, I don't think we'll stop making solitaire games without such debates (not that there's _anything_ wrong with solitaire games).

Also, one of my favorite games is Solar Wars - a strategy game in a planetary system.

I don't see either of these leading to good games. The gameplay for my games will rely on turn based economy growth simulation, Master of Orion style, and turn based trading (Pirates style)

Unfortunately, you are forcing what you think is a good game on us. I have a masters in Economics and I wished every minute it will end sooner. I could turn the tables and say how could something based on economics be interesting? For example, I could say any game you will make will be crap bcos its based on premises I hate (economics). That would be stupid. I'm sure you understand.

I am just asking all to imagine with me in taking this idea forward. I am assuming that the poster likes the premise and has some suggestions to improve the idea, new perspectives and so forth.

To be honest, almost all game ideas sound horrible when you say them out loud. :)

"Let's have a super fast blue rodent that runs in loops and has an attitude!" - Sonic the Hedgehog

"What about a fat Italian plumber who jumps over barrels tossed by a giant gorilla!" - Donkey Kong

"How about we have a bunch of trolls that build bases and destroy other troll's bases." - Warcraft


I think most game ideas or premises sound ridiculous. It's all about execution. A totally weird concept can end up looking brilliant if it's well executed.

Also, with each game idea there's about a 100 different ways it could be executed. The tricky thing is to figure out which one actually makes a fun game. In many cases it's hard to visualize game mechanics purely from a raw game idea, that's why I often find these type of threads not very productive for eliciting game suggestions. If you show us a prototype maybe you might get more focused feedback. :D

I totally agree on the above point, and suprised at the negative response people have to "simulation" games, I also think people are too quick to lump them together with "Microsoft Flight Simulator 74".

Admitedly the original idea sounds a little thin on the ground in terms of game play but I think thats the idea of this thread.

With the game I'd be focusing on the "surfing" side of maintaining the orbit ( Silver surfer style ) perhaps have different turbulance patterns at different levels of orbit and mission goals at different levels, points for tricks... say manage to ride a solar flare and get so many points for every second.

I havn't played a surfing game since "California Games" on the PC but we had alot of fun geting in and riding the tube and doing big turns.

Now THAT instantly made the idea a lot more appealing to me... surfing and doing tricks, would for me transform this from a developers indulgence to a fun toy you could play with. When I played GTA, I spent more time just driving around, jumping off ramps, and messing with the police than actually playing missions. I could see a game like this, where you're surfing above a dying sun, avoiding eruptions and doing cool tricks that get rewarded, actually work quite well.

Mmmm. Interesting. I visualised the struggle to stay in orbit like that but now wondering what sort of controls do you give. I did paragliding once and was impressed how simple it is for the guy to turn where the craft was going based on the "thermals". If he pulled a cord on his left, the craft dipped left, pull it right, it dips right and pull both it goes up. Hope I remember right. In paragliding you can "feel" the thermals but how do you get it in the game? Render the gases slightly transparent or as particles which will let you guess the thermals in them?