Phone

By Shamus Posted Tuesday Feb 21, 2006

Filed under: Pictures 12 comments

This December I got my first cell phone as a gift from my wife. I’ve used them before, but actually owning one has given me some time to really think about this technology and how I use it. Now I have a question: Why are these things so damn small?!?

I’m only 5’11, so I’m not an unusually large man. My hands are normal sized, and yet cell phones always feel so tiny in my hands. Using the pad to enter numbers is difficult without a tool, because the buttons are smller than my fingertips. When I hold it up to my face it feels like I’m talking into a toy. Its too short, so that when unfolded it audio input is aimed at my cheek. It’s too narrow, and doesn’t really fit into the palm of my hand the way a mouse or electric shaver would. I can’t imagine how big guys even make use of these things. The audio output is so small that it does a poor job of covering my ear, thus letting in a lot of external noise. This isn’t just my phone, this is every cell phone I’ve held in the past couple of years. What’s going on here?

I understand why there was such a push to make phones smaller in the past. The first cell phones were clunky and heavy. Nobody wanted to talk into a brick. But the trend of smaller phones has progressed to the point where it no longer makes a lot of sense. I assume this push is in response to consumer demand, but I can’t imagine why people want phones this small.

What I’d like to see in a phone:

Make the phone about 25% larger. Use some of that extra space for more battery. Use the rest of some sort of internal cushioning or shock absorbtion. Drop support for watching movies, downloading songs, playing music videos, video games, and all of that other non-phone junk. I’m sure that won’t make the phone lighter, but it will get rid of a lot of needless clutter in the interface. You won’t need to waste so much surface area with web interface style buttons, which will free up space on the keypad so that the buttons are useful to adults. All of this would make a phone that is sturdier, more practical, more stable, and (most importantly) easier to use. I’d rather have a great phone than a mediocre phone that is also a mediocre video player / gameboy.

But that’s just me.

 


 

digg – Submit Item

By Shamus Posted Tuesday Feb 21, 2006

Filed under: Nerd Culture 3 comments

So, I submitted my terrain series to digg. Let’s see if anyone diggs it?

See the step-by-step of building a terrain rendering engine. This series starts off in a world of blue wireframe and develops into a nice texture-mapped world of mountains and valleys. You can read the technical details behind development, or just gaze at the pretty pictures.

UPDATE: Later. Nope. Only six people found it interesting. Tough crowd. Tough crowd.

read more | digg story

 


 

Roll for Damage

By Shamus Posted Tuesday Feb 21, 2006

Filed under: Pictures 3 comments



Roll for Damage

Originally uploaded by ShamusYoung.


Just testing the “blog this” feature on Flickr.

While we’re here: Why “Flickr”? What’s wrong with “Flicker”? Need to buy a vowel? Carpel tunnel kicked in when naming the site? Any suggestions on how we should pronounce this without adding the non-existant E?

Maybe deliberatly misspelled stuff is trendy. Maybe I should start calling myself Shams.

I’d be so hip.

 


 

So-called Terrorists in World of Warcraft

By Shamus Posted Monday Feb 20, 2006

Filed under: Rants 5 comments

A guild in World of Warcraft has decided to hold an entire server hostage. The guild has created the item that allows them to open up a great deal of content in the game, but they are refusing to use it until somebody pays them 5000 gold to do the deed.

I wouldn’t call these guys “terrorists”. Ever. (They are being called that by fellow players) People need to stop using the word “terrorist” to mean “a**hole”. Terrorists slaughter innocent civilians. A**holes mess up your computer game for their own amusement. There is a difference, and if you can’t spot it then you shouldn’t be writing headlines. Grow up already.

Anyway. These guys are being jerks, on purpose, for no other reason than they can and they want people to “remember” them.

This is just the sort of thing I was talking about a few days ago when I made the case that multiplayer gaming was not the magical future that some claim it will be.

UPDATE: The thread on Digg is now flagging this as a “hoax”. As in: The guys doing this were “just kidding”. The hilarity of the “joke” escapes me. Either way, they are being idiots. The people calling them terrorists were being melodramatic, and above all I’m glad I don’t depend on these people to take part in my on-line entertainment. Kids get bored with the game and decide to amuse themselves by spreading rumors, causing problems, perpetrating hoaxes, and being a bunch of drama queens. They make for poor playmates, and anyone who thinks the single-player experience is “an abberation” should spend a few hours locked in a room with these defective brats.

And while we’re all here: Happy President’s Day.

read more | digg story

 


 

Terrain, Part 10

By Shamus Posted Monday Feb 20, 2006

Filed under: Programming 24 comments

End of The Project

I think I’ve accomplished everything I set out to do when I started this project. I have an attractive terrain engine that runs well even on a two-year-old computer, and which leaves plenty of memory and CPU power for whatever game I might want to add.

From here, I may modify the engine and try to put it to use, but if I do it will be a seperate series.

There were several items I had left for this final post, but most of them were not part of the engine itself and would make for even duller reading, if such a thing is possible.

Stuff I learned:

  1. An overhead engine is far, far easier to make than a first-person engine. This was easier than I’d anticipated. I imagine the real challenges of such an engine appear when you start putting foliage on it.
  2. A lot of camera movement limits I’ve encountered in games probably exist due to engine limitations, and not because the designers wanted to annoy the users. I’m thinking back to the original Black & White (the link goes to B&W 2, the original website just redirects to the sequel. Jerks) and the way the overhead camera was always tethered to the ground in such an annoying way. At the time I thought it was just a poor interface, but now I see it was probably a way to keep poly count under control. I found limiting the camera movement speed covered a multitude of shortcomings.
  3. Making a lot of textures on the fly is much faster than I expected. I cranked the number of distinct terrain textures to 1,024 and I was still able to turn them out fast enough to keep up.
  4. In the future, I need to set more specific goals for projects like this. Without any guiding design, I felt a lot of my choices were arbitrary when confronted with various tradeoffs. For example, I never decided ahead of time how fast the user should be able to move around the landscape, how high or low their viewing angle was allowed to be, how far they should be allowed to see, or even what scale I was dealing with. Many games put limits on stuff like this, and deciding those limits ahead of time (or at least having an idea of how I wanted the interface to work) would have given me more to go on.
  5. Agonizing over polygon counts with modern graphics hardware is often time poorly spent. It’s better to give the CPU a break, even if it means being sloppy and letting the GPU (your graphics card) pick up the slack.
  6. The method I came up with in Part 6 for casting shadows is really fast, and a nice trick. I’ll have to remember that one.
  7. Making an engine that can churn out good-looking rolling hills that are visible to the horizon is still a major challenge. It’s easy to come up with a couple of “square miles” of terrain, but reaching the horizon is very hard. Most games have fake mountains in the distance. Far Cry fixed this by setting the game on small islands, making the horizon all water. Flight simulators make the ground very simple up close. I think we’re still a little ways off from true expansive terrain that can be explored on foot.
  8. Recording a project like this was useful. It was time-consuming, and probably wouldn’t make sense if I was actually making a game, but for an educational project like this it gave me a good look at what worked and what didn’t. Even better, it gave me a chance to learn from others who took the time to leave some very interesting comments.

UPDATE 2/25/2006: In response to inexplicable public demand, I have since released the source code. So, if you have some skill in C++ you can experiment with the code yourself.

Thanks for reading.

 


 

Chizumatic Ecstatic

By Shamus Posted Sunday Feb 19, 2006

Filed under: Links 1 comments

A couple of weeks ago I was complaining about Chizumatic being down. Looks like it’s back in business. This is great, since I recently finished Haibane Renmei and have been looking forward to his review. I avoid reading detailed reviews of movies and things until after I’ve seen the work in question, and then I compare my impressions to those of the reviewer. I’m sure I’m not the only person who does this, although to many it probably sounds wierd. For me reading reviews is more like having a conversation about a movie after seeing it, and Den Beste always has interesting things to say about something that goes well beyond “it was good / it sucked”.

 


 

System Shock

By Shamus Posted Saturday Feb 18, 2006

Filed under: Game Reviews 12 comments

I have played a lot of computer games over the years, but none have affected me so strongly as the 1994 classic System Shock. The game had such a lasting effect on me that I wrote an entire novel based on the game. This means that I will, from time to time, blather on about this game and you will just have to cope with it.

In 1999 the sequel System Shock 2 came out and captured the essence of the original, but since then there hasn’t been a game that really appealed to me the way these two have. More recently, Deus Ex and Deus Ex 2 have come along and been called a spiritual successor to the System Shock series, although I’ve never thought of them as such. They are fine games, but the System Shock series stands alone as the perfect game at the perfect time. The game took advantage of what computers could do welll in 1994, and left out things they couldn’t. It took the key elements of immersive gameplay and distilled them into a unique and (at the time) frightening experience. It had numerous elements that have been often duplicated, but never with the same sublime results.

Here are what I believe to be the key features that made System Shock so special. Yes, this is highly subjective. Feel free to set me straight in the comments if you think I’ve messed this all up.

Solitude

Games have always been terrible at letting you interact through conversation. Branching conversation trees are no substitute for actual talking, and it imposes certain choices onto the player’s character. Conversations are structured so that you can never ask the right questions, or at least never ask anything that might give away key plot details.

“Beware! You go into the greatest of peril!” Yeah, I’d love if the game gave me the chance to ask about some of the specifics of this peril, but I guess the character I’m playing just loves surprises.

Characters you meet never seem to have anything going on when you’re not around, which only reinforces the fact that they aren’t real. They always have to make excuses for why they will stay exactly where they are while you are off fighting evil. “I’d come with you, but I have to watch after the village.” Right. Which is why you stand in the same place day and night and don’t interact with the rest of the town. Because you are ‘taking care of the village’. Well, good luck with that, then.

Eventually their demands become a predictable burden. Their praise is empty and wearisome. “You saved us! Truly you ARE the chosen one!” Yeah, yeah, I saved your village and all your people. NOW will you open the north gate? ‘Cause I’m sure there is another village just around the corner with bunch more helpless idiots waiting for a hero to show up and solve all of their problems.

Placing the player in isolation skates around this limitation. Communication comes in the form of scrawled notes and emails, and the player never has to endure a conversation with a brainless and frustrating NPC. The effect is that the characters seem more real, even though you don’t have any direct contact with them.

Games that have since done this: Survival horror games like Resident Evil and Silent Hill are usually games of solitude. Likewise for the DOOM and Quake series.

Ideal Setting

Computer games have always been better at indoor settings, particularly dungeon or installation-style places. The man-made nature of the place allows for lots of boxy rooms and corridors.

Caves, cities, and outdoor areas all demand a certain level of complexity. Caves need to be irregular and lumpy. Cities allow you to see a long distance, and that large visible area is just packed with detail. (or should be) Indoor man-made places don’t have these problems. This makes everything easier to render. All of this was even more true in 1994 than it is now. Computers couldn’t do curved surfaces at the time, and the games that tried look silly by today’s standards.

System Shock was set on a space station. There were no curved surfaces, no need for poorly realized urban landscapes or fake looking outdoor settings with thick fog. The setting was perfect for the rendering capabilities of the day. As a result, the game doesn’t look nearly as dated as its contemporaries.

The setting was also ideal because of the “stranded” nature of the setting. The game never had to come with with some contrived excuse for why you couldn’t simply give up and walk out if the going got tough.

Games that have since done this: Most games have plenty of “installation” areas in them. Designers are constantly struggling to break free of this, and it has only been in the last few years that we’ve seen decent-looking urban settings (Grand Theft Auto) and vast landscapes (Far Cry) that look convincing. Having games indoors isn’t really an advantage per se, it’s that System Shock focused on a setting that could be done well, as opposed to trying to do something more interesting but doomed to poor execution by the limits of technology.

Empty Character

As a matter of personal taste, I’ve always preferred playing generic main characters to vibrant ones. I can identify with a generic everyman much more than I can identify with “Jake Danger, invincible super-soldier who doesn’t play by the rules”. This is why the Deus Ex series never really captured my attention the way System Shock did. J. C. Denton was cool, but he’s not someone I can really connect with. In System Shock, the main character was a nameless vessel for the player to fill with their own ideas and motivations. The game never put words into your mouth or imposed any sort of ethical code. You simply fought to survive, and your feelings towards your various enemies and allies were for you to decide.

Games that have since done this:While Grand Theft Auto III established that your character is a criminal, your character was otherwise nameless, expresionless, and mute. His motivations are for you to decide. Doom III and Half-Life had people that spoke to you, but the game never put any words in your mouth.

Zombies

Gotta love zombies, or other mindless foes. When playing a typical action game, I get to a point near the end where I start to wonder, Geeze, don’t these soldiers know I’ve just carved my way through about a hundred other guys just like them? Don’t they have any sense of self-preservation? Wouldn’t they run away, or try to talk me into letting them go? Or maybe hide in some of these huge vents they have all over their base?

This is never the case with Zombies or robots. There is something frightening about foes who are willing to die to destroy you. Who have no concept of self. Their tenacity is daunting. Their expressionless pursuit of your demise adds to the fear of the game.

Additionally, computer A.I. is such that enemies tend to fight mindlessly, so it’s far better to have foes that are actually mindless.

Games that have since done this: Lots of games have you fight mindless, souless, fearless enemies. There are many where you fight robots or creatures under mind-control. Halo had The Flood. Resident Evil has zombies. Silent Hill has strange creatures that defy categorization.

Persistant, Non-linear World

At the time, this was an incredible innovation. I go to another level, and then come back to this one! What a novel idea!

Lots of first-person games simply have the player follow a single predetermined path through the world. Most level transitions are one-way trips. The bad guys are sitting in fixed locations. The level consists of a march from one end of the level to the other, with occasional detours to obtain keys or press buttons or other items needed to open up the next area.

On the other hand, System Shock had large open levels with branching paths. There were only 10 levels (depending on how you count them) but they were quite big and there were many paths through them. Enemies would respawn at certain intervals, so you could never count on any particular area to be “safe”. This made the game world much more interesting and varied.

If you throw an item on the ground, you can come back hours later and get it. If you destroy something, it stays destroyed. This led many players to look for areas where they could stash items for use later, which is only possible in a setting where you aren’t going to be cut off from your stash when you go to the next area.

Games that have since done this: There aen’t really many first-person games that have tried to do this sort of freeform gameplay. Grand Theft Auto is freeform, but not persistant. If I knock over a telephone pole and drive away, it will be mysteriously restored when I return. Other games are more persistant (like Thief or Deus Ex) but not freeform: You’re usually stuck in one area until you do something, and then you move to the next location.

Player Advantage

Why did the player survive when everyone else died? What makes the main character so special? It’s much better to have some explanation or advantage other than “they are a badass”. Lots of games just depict the main character as a musclebound guy who is just 100 times tougher than the ordinary soldier. Solid Snake. Doom Marine. Duke Nukem. Sam Fisher. Jack Carver. Max Payne. At some point you have to say, you know what? I know this guy already. It’s been done.

My own preference is that it’s much better to have some other justification for why the player is so much stronger that the opposition. In System Shock, the main character was the only one with a cybernetic implant, which let him hack computers, open doors, and communicate covertly with the outside.

Games that have since done this: Lots of games have some of super-power or unique item that imbue your otherwise normal character with the ability to take on an army. In Half-Life it was the HEV suit. In Deus Ex is was various cybernetic enhancements. Other games have you play as a mutant, or a vampire, or some other super-human.

Looking at this list, it’s clear that the strength of the game isn’t what it did, but what it didn’t try to do that set it apart. System Shock didn’t have anything that hasn’t been done since, and yet nobody has combined all of these elements to do something similar.