[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Game idea....

> Paul Anderson wrote:
>> > How much control is the player given?  What stops him from designing a
>> > kill everything on screen for no energy weapon?
>> >
>> Why should he be stopped?  If he did that, then the game would no longer
>> be challenging, and no longer enjoyable.
> Exactly. In Quake, you're allowed to create mods that make you a god
> among mortals. (heck, just drop to the console and type "god" :)) Such
> displays of awesome power are cool at first, but quickly wear off in
> terms of fun value. So, people tend to design mods which permit them to
> exploit new talents but force them to use new skills (a grappling hook,
> for example, or a really powerful weapon that can be only used in close
> range or takes a long time to reload). Still, cheating can be fun,
> especially if you're a single player and want to see something
> interesting/cool (the bloody head of John Romero in Doom 2, the ability
> to play Aeris after she'd died in Final Fantasy 7 (you can only do it
> with a Game Shark), etc.).
> In general, openness and customizability in games is a Good Thing. The
> dynamics of game players' minds in the large tends to promote the
> modifications which are more challenging to the player, rather than
> easier.

I think the only kinds of modifications that the multiplayer market objects
to are those that give one player an unfair advantage. Usually these are
termed "cheats" (or, in the case of Age of Empires, a "trainer").

The solution I've chosen to use in AT '41 is for the client to checksum its
plugin and ask the server to verify the checksum; if the checksums don't
match, the server downloads the plugin to the client. In this way everyone
is guaranteed to be playing the same game.

Now, if the server is running a plugin that gives one particular player an
advantage, well, people just won't connect to that server for very long :-).
Rick Genter
ICQ UIN# 8291497

Defend liberty; join the AT corps!