papillon
Actually, no, these things happen all the time.
In particular, in MMORPGs, if one member of your group starts having serious problems with....
What I was referring to with my WoW example was Jakes way of reasoning. He wrote:
Worst of all, you are willfully ignoring one of the worst problems in multiplayer situations - one player may get called away to talk on the telephone /../ The more opportunities you give the player to wait for something, the more likely this will happen, because they'll have more cues.
I replied that it isn't really something that speaks against multiplayer functionality, since it's the user and not the tool that's the problem. That, and it's true for all multiplayer games that a person
might disappear in the middle of gaming. I just didn't (and still don't) see how it has anyhting to do with my specific idea, while I do see that it has plenty to do with
multiplaying in general. While pointing out that those scenarios don't tell us much about the matter at hand (which is not if you have friends who can properly sit down and play with you) I also admitted that they could occur, just like in World of Warcraft or any other game for that matter.
But usually the person in the position of the inventing sees a use for it, or they wouldn't bother.
If you make a great multiplayer VN and everyone likes it, then of course, opinions will change. Until then, most of us can only go off our own extrapolations and what we know of what we like and what players we know like.
Exactly, hence I suggest something and PyTom will do as he pleases anyways in the end. I haven't nor am I in a position to demand anything. What I have done is to come with an idea.
You suggest that a multi-VN is created as an example to show it all. If I
could already create one I wouldn't be having this discussion and it would also mean that multiplayer function
was supported. Now, it isn't, thus the multi-NV can't be created. This makes it hard for me to try it out and even if I did try it out it would just be one case of a million others that are possible. Stories and gameplay would vary greatly, as they do in solo-VN, also the views on how to resolve the waiting times (mingame or extra fiction as a newspaper. nothing at all or dynamically injected fiction? etc)
I don't think an interactive murder mystery would work with nothing but preset options. /../ In a multiplayer game, if you're playing the suspect, you don't want to tell the detective anything no matter what clever questions they ask. If you were fully roleplaying instead of just selecting from preset options, you'd be much more likely to slip up and accidentally give information away. But if you're faced with choices to analyse before selecting the right one, you can easily avoid saying the one that gives a big clue to the detective. Unless all your choices involve giving away big clues, and then you'll probably be frustrated that the game isn't letting you play your character correctly.
This is the reason for why I've been reluctant to discuss specific cases: A murdermyestery, heck, any story, can be written in a thousand ways both for single & multi play.
1. In my murder mystery example all the players didn't have the same information. This means that P1 knows something that P2 doesn't and vice versa. That in return means that P2 could actually reveal some kind of clue without veen knowing it. I'm not saying that that is the way to go or that it's a smooth thing to do, just that your notion about the knowledge of slip-ups isn't fair to what can be done with the genre.
2. You don't have to write the game in a way so that people slip up at all. It could maybe be like a perfect Poirot or Sherlock Holmes adaptation, where there seldom are obvious slip-ups due to the hard-to-crack nature of many of those stories. Again, not saying that this is the way to go, just that there are many options to go with.
3. It's clear to me that you saw an end to the mystery where the murdered
is caught. I'd understand and respect somebody who'd write a murder mystery multi-VN where that is to happen. At the same time I myself wouldn't do it that way. I'd script it so that it has 2 or maybe, depending on workload, 3 possible endings - a) murder gets away b) murder is busted c) the wrong person is busted. Whatever happens would be the sum of all the choices that P1 & P2 make, and most of it would be dialog in my case. As I've said many times before in this thread, this is just my personal preferences and this part of the discussion is actually more or less off-topic. It doesn't matter what type of murder mysteries we enjoy
Now, another possibility for multiplayer would be to have a game that is still technically single PLAYER, but also has another human as the GAME MASTER. The GM (possibly the game author) plays the game with the player, seeing all the player's choices, and adjusting bits of dialog for ALL the NPCs as the game goes along. Ideally there would be ways for the GM to insert extra dialog or change things already written on the fly in order to customise the player's experience - also ideally, the computer should be able to pick default choices if the GM loses connection or fails to respond in a timely manner.
Interesting thought. It could be done with the already existing RenPy, if it had multiplay, except perhaps for the inserting fo extra dialog - but those wouldn't perhaps be needed if you had plenty of them scripted in advance already. Making the computer acting intelligent in case the GM isn't there is doable but would require extra work that I wouldn't do myself since I wouldn't play with a person who wanders of in the middle of it
Again, I would still support anyone who'd use the multiplay fucntionality like this, with or withour computer fallback scripting - as long as people are happy with what they play/create I don't see why I or anyone else needs our approval (and yes, I know you weren't seeking it, I'm just saying..)
PyTom
More on topic... I think the wait times in a multiplayer VN would be more annoying than those in a turn-based strategy game, like CIV, or a networked version of Settlers of Catan (which I've been playing recently). The reason for this is that in a strategy game, it's possible to think more than a turn ahead. So while I'm waiting for other players to move, I'm considering what I will do next... In a story-based game, there really isn't anything like that.
That has actually been solved already and is presented in my previous replies that address that very exact thought.
In summary you'd solve it by 1) extra fiction that's available in the form of a book/newspaper/whatever inside the game and 2) different subtle "mini-games" that could be all from logic puzzles in a corner of the screen that relate to the story to whatever the author can dream off and that she thinks would work. All in all, there are plenty of ways to actually keep the waiting player occupied if he find waiting disturbing, and keeping her busy without necessarily ruining the main game.
On the technical side, multiplayer would be fairly easy if we disallowed saving/loading. I'm not sure how it would work if saving and loading was allowed. (Like what would you do if people saved in a different place?)
Since you're the coder and know the details about the loading & saving part I'd be of little help here. However, in many games, and for various reasons, it's fully acceptable and a solution to some problems that only
one of the players, usually the host, saves the game and later on restores it if needed. I don't know if that would do the trick or not. If the save games are stored separate and locally on each players computer (in contrast to the host saving it for both for them) then it might also be an idea to include some info about each others save files in each others save files. So, P1 presses "Save". Renpy "locks" the screen for both players for 1 second or whatever it would take and it then takes a snapshot of P2:s game, some kind of checksum, and then saves P1:s game/progess along with P2:s checksum. The same stuff happens on P2:s side. Later on when P1 decides to load the game it would only start if the client who connects to him has a checksum that matches the original save file from P2, that was saved simultaneously as P1 saved his (and that was done since the screens were "locked" etc). We'd use the checksum to simply check to see if the 2 files that are loaded are compatible, part of the same game, and saved at the same time.
Else it is perhaps possible to make a player
request, via a push of a button or whatever, that the game is saved, and each players renpy would then automatically save the game locally as soon as renpy thought it would come to a point where a "clean save" was possible (if such a point doesn't exist all the time of course, then it would be done directly).
Since I only see mutliplayer as the ability to remotely make choices, I don't really follow what it is in the save process that is made much more complicated. Ren'Py seems to have a decent save/load. This also shows that the whole issue can really only be understood by you as a coder since you have the knowledge of how it's built, and I don't. What exactly about the save/load would be problematic in multiplay?
A third option if saving/loading should be very complicated or problematic is to use "checkpoints" in a novel, and
those would be saved instead and you'd continue from a checkpoint. If that is the same as saving/loading, which I suspect it is, then checkpoints could be scripted in the VN and they could be accessed by entering a "code" in the beginning, before you start playing. However, this is an emergency solution that lacks elegance.
Jake
(Aside: I'm get the distinct impression that you are not a programmer or a mathematician... would that be right?)
Yes and no: I study philosophy at the university and I only do php, vb and mIRC scripting. However, even if I was a gravedigger it wouldn't say much about my reasoning in these matters since I haven't discussed actual code implementation and explicitly left that to PyTom. Maybe I could turn it around and ask if you're a sociologist.. would that be right?
...you are literally the first person I have ever heard claim that forced gaps in something they're reading are no problem at all, which suggests to me a trend towards people finding forced gaps irritating. And it's rarely worth betting against trends. /../ The reading-speed-matching problem is related to the multiplayer functionality, it just isn't universal to all players. If it wasn't related to the multiplayer functionality then the reading-speed-matching problem would exist for some people outside of a multiplayer environment, but it doesn't.
All of that only matters if there
are breaks in a multi-VN where the Player does
nothing. Sure, such a novel could be written, then again - so could a novel where there is 1) extra fiction and/or 2) mini-games to keep him occupied. If so, I don't see why we're discussing it at all since problem's solved.
Am I misremembering you offering to write a custom PHP site to match players by reading speed? Because it would be relatively trivial to implement a simple multiplayer VN in PHP/HTML - far easier, in fact, than it would in Ren'Py.
It probably wouldn't be fully-featured, with all the pans and zooms and dynamic displayables and so on that Ren'Py offers, but it would easily be enough to demonstrate the concept. So why don't you do that, and come back and tell us, and we'll go and have a play and see if we're convinced?
What I offered was coding a meeting place for players, since PyTom expressed a worry that it would be hard for players to find each other.
You are correct that it's possible and probably easier to create a "dirty coded" visual novel in PHP. However, if PHP really was so useful for that purpose I wouldn't be here having this discussion, and to tell you the truth PHP is really not
unless you start tampering with tons of AJAX (java), which I rather don't since it would be hell to make it work on every browser and also mean that I have to work with php + mysql + java to do something one single engine that already more or less exists could do fully-featured.
Add to that the amount of work and the actual result in
output: Not only wouldn't what I create lack plenty of features compared to RenPy, it would look crappy, be non-graphical and also almost make it more worth it to code a
proper php engine/parser for the purpose instead of trying to whoop up a speedy result to "impress" you guys (which of course wouldn't happen anyhow with the tools I'd use). Coding a real engine in PHP would take me at least 2 months before I would be able to present it as finished due to the university and me starting from scratch han-solo-ing it. Lastly, we have the whole question what one case, using a crap engine, would prove anyway about multi-VN:s as a genre, even if it indeed could help us locate said problems/solutions.
Lastly, much, if not everything, we have discussed this far can more or less be reasoned about. A lot has been discussions about
empirical matters (like how fast people read, what do people do while they wait, why is it a problem to wait) that are verifiable. Much else has been just personal opinions and feelings towards something that doesn't even exist yet, and yet other stuff has been more logical exercises.
No, ignoring the problem is exactly what that is.
Firstly, if the players didn't want to play multiplayer games, they wouldn't start them - we're not dealing with people who don't want to play them, we're dealing with people who have changed their minds about playing them. The fact that there are unsolved problems with reading speed means that there are likely to be a non-negligible class of people who start out thinking that they're going to enjoy it and change their mind part-way through. Add to this the set of people who think that answering the telephone or front door is more important than playing a very long multiplayer game (and they may well be right) and the inescapable conclusion is that there exists some non-negligible set of people who will start playing a multiplayer VN and then stop part-way through for whatever reason.
Secondly - and this is the part you seem to be willfully ignoring - it doesn't matter about that set of people's enjoyment. What matters is the active, willing player on the other end who has their enjoyment of the game ruined by someone who leaves
I'm not sure I follow what problem I'm ignoring according to you since I've given an answer to all your questions that were raised in the earlier topic.
1.
If you mean that I ignore the fact that some people take a shit in the middle of a game I don't - those exist, and those exist in every multiplayer game that I know of, hence, they're not a problem associated with my idea. They're a problem for multiplaying
in general. They're also not the normal multiplaying case. A normal session in a multiplayer game would be defined as one where the participants did what they're there to do - play, in most cases. Not do the laundry IRL. I'm sorry that people who are there to play get a bad experience because the other players decides to watch porn on the internet instead, but it's really not something I can be held responsible for.
2.
If you mean that I ignore that my suggestion would lead to more players getting distracted and wondering of to do other stuff
due to the dullness of watching nothing while they wait in the multi-play VN, it's maybe because I have (or haven't, depends on perspective) ignored it. Why? Because that problem has been declared as
solved via the "minigaming" and the "extra fiction" that is available for the waiting players to keep them occupied. If thinking of strategy or doing other things while waiting works in all other game genres I suppose that
types of "minigaming" woudl work in the multi-VN. I suggested that in a previous reply and also gave non-disturbing logic puzzles as
an example. On top of that there is also the extra fluff fiction that could be used as a solution instead. You pointed out the problem with that, and I solved that as well.
With a game of Quake if someone abandons the game you've still got a running score, you can tell if you were winning or not and derive some sense of conclusion from that. And if you start again you get as good an experience with the next set of players, so it's fine. With a game of Civ you'll be annoyed that you've sunk two hours into a game that didn't get satisfactorily resolved, but you can still enjoy it just as much when you play again. With a VN, not only have you lost the two hours, but also your subsequent enjoyment of the game is diminished because you've already seen a good chunk of it before.
Here you have a point.
Yes, you're correct that it would ruin a lot if that was to happen and that a good chunk of the story (if not most of it) would be spoiled if a player ran out on you in the middle of everything and didn't want to continue. However, for this to be an argument against multi-VN, the scenario you describe should happen very often.
I honestly don't know where you usually get your multiplaying pals, but I for one always ignore games where I know that the lobbies are crowded with "idiots", cheaters, exploiters and others who seem to do about everything except play the game as it's creators intended. If I understand your objection correctly, it doesn't matter much that I point out that you decide whom to play with yourself, it doesn't matter that you are the one who picks the sucker that walks out on you in the middle of the game, since your objection is(?) how I would handle the situation when it actually arises.
The answer is that I wouldn't: If you are half way through a VN and the 2P walks away to never return the situation it lacks resolution
if your wish is to forget what you have already read in the VN & get back it's potential. Thus is the
nature of novels, they're content based, most of them anyhow. It's a result of what it is to read and remember. A "solution" would be to let long enough time to pass so you forget all about it and then replay it in the future
If you're an active VN player maybe that wouldn't be that hard (or it would become even harder hehe..) Nah, but for real - it lacks a smooth solution.
However, there is one emergency solution that I have mentioned elsewhere: Pre-scripted response from the cpu
if P2 walks out on you and doesn't return and you don't want to replay half the thing again with another person. This would of course effectivley transform the multiplayer story into a single player, but, it would allow the P1 to at least finish the story.
So, P1 would have the following 3 choices: 1) replay it with another human 2) don't play it until he forgets it 3) continue playing it as a single-player game (sorry, but again - not my bad that the person disappeared) and now I came up with a fourth solution 4) whoever willing to jump into the middle of the story could replace P2 given thats person exists and it can be solved with the save/loading.
For the sake of the discussion I could also claim that there are zero solutions, which is more or less the case since my solutions above aren't really what we're hoping for here. Okey, now we know. If a player runs away in tehj middle of a VN we are in deep shit if he doesn't plan to ever continue playing it. That story would be ruined. For maybe most players. What does this say about multiplayer VN? I don't know. If you still assume that this will happen more often in multi-VN:s
despite minigames and fiction we would truly have a pronblem, yes. Then again, in such a case you must have some kind of arguments thats how that mini-gaming and/or fiction doesn't work. (I personally think that showing that fiction doesn't work will be hard as hell since a novel player is there to read...not to mention how one can dismiss every form of minigame that can be created)
"I'm confident that the problem will be solved" isn't a solution to the problem, it's just unjustified optimism.
I probably also offered something more, like a solution. and not only an optimistic grin
eyerouge wrote:While there are computer games that lack AI or have a crappy AI that is easy to detect and identify as a non-human player, there are many very successful games, just like Unreal Tournament for example, that have an AI that is virtually impossible to dientify as non-human.
I believe to be totally false.
Well, then it's no wonder that we come to different conclusions since we have different beliefs about the facts at hand.
Would you mind telling me how you would tell the difference of a "Bot" set on "Adaptive" in Unreal Tournament (a Quake like FPS game) and me, if you were to play against us?
1) You don't know the skill of the bot, heck, it's adaptive, the only thing you know is that however you play it will adapt. We could even script it so it sets its modes at random every now and then. Skillwise nothing reveals if its a bot because:
2) You also don't know how well I play. On top of that, you don't know my play style, just like in the case with the bot. Again,
I could and probably would adapt or go random frenzy. I might do smart things, amazing things, just like the bot, or I might get stuck in a door, just like a bot.
I have been playing plenty of multiplayer StarCraft. And you are right. In that game it actually takes playing against a mediocre player to not be able to tell if the player is an AI or not. The fact is that you only could write that because you
already knew how the StarCraft AI behaves (hence, it's a crappy AI and almost not an AI at all when it comes to the words meaning, at least in the sense I'd use it).
In any case, the above only matters if one suggest that multi-VN:s should exist of reasons other than I do. We had that portion of the discussion because you or somebody else wrote that it doesn't matter if it's a human or not that is selecting the other options in a (multi)VN and that it all looked and felt the same. I still suggest that while it is true that it all looks the same, it's not the same experience for the players when they know that there are humans involved. I see that you have objected to those parts as well, so I'll resolve that in a second, below.
eyerouge wrote:you'd know that you'd be playing a multi-VN with another human, and that the knowledge alone would suffice for the social factors to be present
.
You keep saying this, and you keep failing to provide any evidence that doesn't hinge on VNs being analoguous to sports-analogues. Which they're not. Do you have any other reason to believe this other than something that basically boils down to "people play chess therefore they will enjoy doing anything so long as they know there is another human being involved"?
I'll be frank and admit that I haven't fully understood your sport-analogies, and also that I wouldn't describe what I've been trying to express as something that would be captured by sport-analogies, even if sport-analogies maybe very well
could prove to be good analogies (after all, me not understanding them doesn't suggest they're bad..)
When it comes to what you boil down my suggestions about social factors, the "people play chess therefore they will enjoy doing anything so long as they know there is another human being involved"-part, I would actually never say that. What I would say however is that a person that plays chess would ideally 1) do it because he is interested in the game somehow, it may be its setting, its rules a combo or anything else 2) gets something out of co-work/competition, depending on format etc 3) would, through the gameplay, interact with the other players on some level and as a result of the activity itself 4) identify or feel like a part of a chess playing community and 5) experience the game/situation/the activity/himself/etc differently if he plays alone against a computer or with say his friend or a competitor from another chessclub.
I must also add that chess an example of social activity can be a tough nut to crack, it would all depend on why you play and with whom etc. I myself have been playing pro chess in a chess club as young(er), and I sure didn't experience it as "social activity" while I was competing. So, i'd still say it would all depend on the players and given situation, what's social or not is of course individual. I might be a person that can be present at a party but hate the event or behave like a mute - would I have been social? I don't know, point is that if you do x and don't experience anything social about it, and x happens to be a multi VN written by me, the playing of x wouldn't be social for that individual. On the other hand, this doesn't keep others from going to the party to have some fun
What I have been claiming is that
humans in general are social creatures and seem to prefer (when they are in the mood of course) activity x before y if x has a social factor attached to it even if x & y would be the same seen from all other perspectives. At least it seems to be true with many games.
Maybe I haven't been clear enough on this point, so I'll repeat myself: Multi-VN, just like multi-anything, isn't for everyone. What I
have been saying is that multiplay has some kind of social psychology
behind the scene. That
it seems to matter to people if they win/lose/work with/against a computer or a real human, and that it's because of various reasons. Social factors would explain
some of them, but certainly not
all.
That said, it might be the case that you don't find playing a multi-VN a social thing at any level, or, at any level that would give
you something worth a while on return. I can't speak for you, and you know your own preferences the best.
Simple counter-proof: I am defining "staring at a wall to watch paint dry" to be a game. I assert that there exists some portion of the population which enjoys watching paint dry, even if you don't. So, if I put another human being the other side of the wall to watch the paint on that side dry, it becomes a multiplayer game. Is it automatically more fun, just for knowing that there's another human on the other side?
Now - how does it differ if the other human gets up and walks away mid-game without you noticing? Is it still more fun, or does it instantly stop being so fun because they're gone, even though you don't know they're gone?
If you stare at the wall and enjoy yourself/like it/see it as a game I don't see what the problem is with your behavior or how it proves me wrong. (Maybe because we've misunderstood each other?) I agree that it doesn't matter that I don't enjoy staring at the wall or classify the activity as a game, since you clearly do and like it(?).
If you put another human on the other side of the wall that also stares I'd say it wouldn't be a multiplayer game from a psycho-social view
unless at least one of you is
aware that the other person exists and is doing what he's doing (participating in the game).
If you wonder if I accept that you two, the wall-staring club
call your activity a game I would be prepared to accept that you think it is one. If you wonder if I accept that you'd label it multiplayer I'd accept that as well. (Usually the traditional definition of a two-player game has some kind of interaction, so if the question was different, like for example if the majority of the world would understand you or share your label in your activity, I would probably reply differently and start ranting about linguistics, internal interpretations etc)
If it's more fun or not that the other human is on the other side of the wall would be pretty much up to the two humans to decide/feel.
Your question makes me wonder where this is heading though, as I have never suggested that multi-VN should exist "because they're more fun". I haven't ever claimed that everything gets better or that something must get better because you create a multi-NV. What I have written is that it doesn't take a lot of imagination to come to the conclusion that what makes many types of interaction between humans interesting could find it's way into the VN world if VN:s where multiplayer and we made interaction possible. Add to that the sharing of experiences as something that constitutes a social event.
Now - how does it differ if the other human gets up and walks away mid-game without you noticing? Is it still more fun, or does it instantly stop being so fun because they're gone, even though you don't know they're gone?
It would still depend on the humans involved and of the reasons for why they acted as they did etc. If nobody knows that one of them walks away, no, it wouldn't matter for the other since he wouldn't know. He'd still have the illusion that he was multiplaying and probably be quite happy about it.
If he knew the other one was gone something
would change on a psychological level. An example of such a feeling could be the notion of being alone and knowing that nobody was on the other side playing with you, that it was just you and the wall now, and you would also stop thinking if the other guy picked his nose or not
He'd also know that there wasn't a sharing of what
could be a similar experience, for whatever purpose they'd want one.
eyerouge wrote:the social aspect and the interaction through the story and between players is what makes it interesting.
There is no social aspect unless there is a direct communication between players, and that hasn't been a part of any of the things you've said so far, and isn't fundamental to the idea of a multiplayer VN.
There is negligibly-little interaction through the story between players, because the story one player sees is exactly the same regardless of whether a human or a random-picker makes the decisions, and the human on the other end has a very limited set of choices available to them so it is negligibly possible to discover whether a human or a computer is making them.
I don't know if we define social aspects differently - what you write suggest that we do, thus accounting for where we pass each other in parts of the discussion. I claim that
direct communication isn't necessary to experience or be a part of social phenomenons, and I also believe it's more or less what flies at the academy among sociologists and/or psychologists. An example of a social aspect, in a way that i use the word, would be the feelings, emotions and thoughts you'd have about the other guy on the other side of the wall while you sat there. You'd interact with/through the thoughts, with parts of yourself, but about him and/or you as two, sitting there meditating/playing/whatever. Missing a person would be another result of a social factor, even if it's the result of non-socializing with the person you miss.
Even if one would totally crap on my usage of the word we could solve it by dismissing it and trying to invent a new word that would capture the psychological/social aspects of multiplaying, the answer to the question why people many times seem to prefer to play with other people even if a sufficient AI is around. My answer was that social factors explain it,
in part.
I maintain that direct communication isn't really necessary in order to feel like a part of social setting, but, as I just wrote, we don't even have to use the word if that's a problem as it's more interesting to understand what it signifies and in which way it helps us get anywhere in this discussion.
bloodywyvern
Personally I find most of the arguments made here for multi player to be completely unjustified.
That's the thing: You
personally find the agruments unjustified, while you don't bother debunking them.
You have claimed people don't care about waiting, that VN's will offer the same experience as RPG's or strategy games, and just knowing the other person is human is plenty to keep you interested.
No, I have claimed no such thing. You claim that I claimed.
Most of my answers have been interwoven and to summarize it like you tells little to nothing about what I have really suggested and how it all is interwoven.
The fact is all evidence exists on the contrary, which has been pointed out numerous times already in several different ways.
No,
the fact is that evidence doesn't exist of any kind, nor from my side or anyone elses. If you believe that evidence against multiplayer exists and that they have been presented in here you must really read your posts selectively and/or ignore what you've read. Why? Because I have given answers and possible & plausible , in some cases even multiple, solutions to the problems that ave been raised (given they're not technical).
So, I'm afraid what you wrote is false and/or a conclusion that is really to early to come by.
Your asking the people here to consider implementing something that has no significant reason to be done, if you'd like to do it yourself than great.
Well, that's because you don't recognize a discussion when you see it: I was under the impression that we were actually in the middle of a process where we
discuss if something
is worth implementing or not. Now, I don't know from climate you come discussion wise and how talkative you are, nor how long or thorough discussions you are usually part of, but there is nothing unusual with people that choose to communicate of free will in an open forum and that don't come to conclusions before everyone has had their saying. It would be kind of like me telling Jake he was wrong even before he had a chance to reply. Give me a break, it's just so unfair of you to claim that there are no reasons for implementing something when this whole discussion (that is ongoing mind you) is just about that topic.
And btw, thank you for allowing me to write an engine myself. Great that you think it's great, but then again, how can you? You dissed multi-VN:s, so it's possibly a contradiction.
. The case remains the potential problems/obstacles and work involved does not match up with the potential reward
Is that a fact because you say so, or because you draw the conclusion from a discussion that hasn't concluded anything yet? A conclusion is something that would follow from logic. Very little follow on either side of the discussion at this point, even if it has had some bright moments and some problem solving.
I'll contend that for the most part less than 5% of VN makers would even consider making a game with multi player as you describe it. The reason I say this? You have some of the best game makers on this forum giving reservations about the foundations of the idea, that solutions have not been found for. Until there is firm solutions, it's like taking a shot in the dark and hoping to make a hit.
With the very same type of argument one should be able to travel back in time and convince the first person that wrote a VN engine to not write it. Why? Because nobody or almost nobody would write a game using it (at that time since nobody had done it or knew what it was). Because you'd have plenty of creative people giving the creator reservations about the idea and what not.
And btw, solutions have been found, and presented. It's all in here. And talking about firm solutions is wicked since it's not shown how my solutions are un-firm. Not to mention that firm solutions come with time, as a product evolves, just like Ren'Py as a whole has gotten firmer and firmer with time.
If you feel an idea in an open forum is taking a shot in the dark, it's okey with me. Says nothing about the topic though.
It wouldn't be simple, nor easy, but you could do it. Now you have this released...all of the problems mentioned show up (or let's say even a 1/4th of them), your small fan base becomes non existent and...there goes all the time you put in to it.
1. I have already claimed that new genres take time and must get it to evolve. That numbers will be small from the start.
2. You assume the problems exist. The whole point with this thread is having a discussion about them. It's me vs the world, and I'm presumably "losing ground", although I'm not sure why since I still haven't seen the huge unsolvable problems.
My tip: Solve the problems before the work, don't hope they work themselves out in the end.
Hey! That's what we/I are doing!
In here. Right here, right now. If they can't be solved in an imaginary world here in the forum where we have a discussion then at least I wouldn't be able to solve them "IRL".
And that's all I got ^_^ if it sounds rude at all, it's because I'm exhausted and I just find too many claims not backed up
It did sound rude, very so even. But now when you wrote it you gave me a smile and it really helped me coping with it.
I must also apologize for probably being rude back as a result of your rudeness
...had I read the humble note here at the end earlier I'd been more gentle
If you had to lets say make a huge corporate decision, would you go on a hunch where you don't actually know if people will like it or not? Of course not, well this goes double for the people here. Their time can be better spent on projects or engines that will give better rewards.
I totally agree, cause in such a case I would try to maximize profit.. and frankly, i wouldn't even be dealing with VN:s since it's not the industry where you'll earn the biggies
I think it's maybe misdirected to talk about all the people in here and their time: My suggestion was to PyTom, so it would be his time
As for the authors: I haven't demanded or requested that you guys write
anyhting at all that was multi. If you did I'd be happy if it worked, if you didn't I wouldn't really care as I'd be certain that a working concept (if it works) will get it's authors eventually.
the mud challenge
This is to whoever:
MUD:s exist and they have many users. The main differences between a MUD and a VN is the fact that they're multiplayer and that they lack graphics & sound and also rely on the user writing everything by hand.
Now, imagine your favorite MUD. Do you believe anyonem that didn't know what a MUD was and who had never played a MUD before, would play it if all the options you had were pre-written and you could select them by pushing a button/number?
What I'm coming at here is a discussion about what makes MUD:s work and what doesn't make a multiplayer VN to not work. VN:s offer more graphics and sound, at least as complex storyline. The only difference is the input method and also the fact that all would be pre-written in a VN. So, if one says that a MUD with pre-written options wouldn't be played by players who didn't know what a real MUD was, the same person must probably also maintain that what makes MUD:s playworthy is the fact that people
can write whatever they want, that it's the freedom that makes them worth a while playing and that the same freedom, when taken away in a multi-VN, would make it meaningless and problematic to play a multi-VN.
I claim that there is
more than the freedom to type anything in a MUD that makes the MUD interesting. Yes, the freedom and possibilities are unique to the MUD:s, and a multi-VN would be very much less free. However, freedom vs non-freedom has strengths on both sides. What is more important is that the freedom alone doesn't explain why a MUD is worth playing.
The freedom
combined with a lot of other factors make a MUD fun to play. Which are those factors? I maintain that one of them is the storytelling, the pre-written rooms and all other stuff that is around in the MUD world. I also claim that a MUD is a social activity and that that also brings something. Finally, I'm saying that a multi-VN is more or less very much like a MUD with pre-written player options, but, in a deluxe version... and something that still doesn't exist.
I haven't gone through great lengths to show exactly what maked a MUD intersting. I have only pointed out two-three things. I know there might be more to it, but, doesn't it seem a little bit plausible that much (not all) of what makes a MUD enjoyable would be in a mulit-VN?
. While it's not a bad thing to have a detailed debate, I find it hard to get into.
