21st November 2003, 3:35 PM
21st November 2003, 3:42 PM
In the N64 days, having no bots or other cars in multiplayer had a decent excuse -- on many games it was technically very hard to do and they'd never have the time to do it well enough to be able to do that. But the Cube? They have no excuse. Absolutely none. The only reason any game doesn't have other cars (or a full field of cars) in multiplayer or bots in a battle/arena mode is incompetence... or lazyness. Or both.
21st November 2003, 3:46 PM
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Because, silly, people choosing their own carts in LAN would be the [b]smart thing for Nintendo to do, and you know much they hate doing the smart thing! [/B]
My brother and I talked about that and what we came up with is that Nintendo made it that way so people wouldn't be able to pick the same cart. I don't why it's a big deal to them, but I think that's the reason.
After some extensive time with Double Dash this is what I have concluded.
Racing alone = Okay
Racing Co-op = Super fun
Yeah, co-op racing is by far the best feature of the game, IMO.
21st November 2003, 4:09 PM
There really is no rational explanation... none I can think of, certainly.
21st November 2003, 5:11 PM
I assume that Nintendo had a reason in mind when they did it...
21st November 2003, 5:39 PM
Insanity?
21st November 2003, 6:08 PM
Possibly.
21st November 2003, 7:25 PM
Seriously, at least usually Nintendo's strange decisions can be justified SOMEHOW... time, technical limitations, would lose money for a while (online), etc... but this? This is in the 'I'd expect moronic stuff like that from third parties, but from Nintendo???' category.
21st November 2003, 7:29 PM
Well...this is their first LAN game so I guess we can just say they did that because they don't know very much about the workings of LAN. Or something.
21st November 2003, 7:35 PM
*BZZZZT*
Wrong answer. Nintendo's (wll its HAL, but same thing) first LAN game was Kirby's Air Ride.
Wrong answer. Nintendo's (wll its HAL, but same thing) first LAN game was Kirby's Air Ride.
21st November 2003, 7:42 PM
Whatever.
22nd November 2003, 10:36 AM
I'm a weaner!
25th November 2003, 11:39 PM
Quote:In the N64 days, having no bots or other cars in multiplayer had a decent excuse -- on many games it was technically very hard to do and they'd never have the time to do it well enough to be able to do that. But the Cube? They have no excuse. Absolutely none.
I disagree with you completely on that. The GameCube is more powerful, yes, but CPU time wouldn't have been a big bottleneck for AI unless they were going for something extremely good. There isn't an improvement from the N64 to GameCube that would suddenly make programming the AI for 10 bots in a multiplayer deathmatch easy. The racing is pretty easy as far as this sort of thing goes, because they just script the cars to a track. There are of course other factors, but it's nothing compared to the difficulty of making a smart enemy for battle.
And to make myself clear, I'm not talking about the difficulty in processing the AI, I'm saying it's hard to design the AI. You even admit that you know it's a technically difficult thing to do, and nothing has changed. If anything, now they have to spend even more time on teh graphics because there is so much more detail.
If some of you still don't think AI is hard, just try to write an algorithm for something as stupid as finding a way through a maze without using the "Keep a hand on the wall" trick. You'll give up pretty soon.
26th November 2003, 11:12 AM
Yeah that's what I thought. It'd take AI development more similar to an FPS game to get that working, totally different than racing AI.
And actually, the keep-a-hand-on-the-wall trick is the ONLY trick I've EVER used to solve a maze. Always works, UNLESS the maze is constantly shifting itself around, like that one episode of Voyager... As a human, I don't see a reason not to. For the computer, I think sending the AI through every possible path AT THE SAME TIME is the best option :D. Quantumy! (Not that I could begin to try that what with only knowledge of one-ata-time computing, the way ALL of them currently work...)
And actually, the keep-a-hand-on-the-wall trick is the ONLY trick I've EVER used to solve a maze. Always works, UNLESS the maze is constantly shifting itself around, like that one episode of Voyager... As a human, I don't see a reason not to. For the computer, I think sending the AI through every possible path AT THE SAME TIME is the best option :D. Quantumy! (Not that I could begin to try that what with only knowledge of one-ata-time computing, the way ALL of them currently work...)
26th November 2003, 11:16 AM
I unlocked everything in Double Dash.
26th November 2003, 11:20 AM
So did I, I think everyone has by now considering this thread quickly dropped for several days.
26th November 2003, 6:42 PM
Quote:I disagree with you completely on that. The GameCube is more powerful, yes, but CPU time wouldn't have been a big bottleneck for AI unless they were going for something extremely good. There isn't an improvement from the N64 to GameCube that would suddenly make programming the AI for 10 bots in a multiplayer deathmatch easy. The racing is pretty easy as far as this sort of thing goes, because they just script the cars to a track. There are of course other factors, but it's nothing compared to the difficulty of making a smart enemy for battle.
And to make myself clear, I'm not talking about the difficulty in processing the AI, I'm saying it's hard to design the AI. You even admit that you know it's a technically difficult thing to do, and nothing has changed. If anything, now they have to spend even more time on teh graphics because there is so much more detail.
If some of you still don't think AI is hard, just try to write an algorithm for something as stupid as finding a way through a maze without using the "Keep a hand on the wall" trick. You'll give up pretty soon.
Its a tough question... but I just think that when some games can do it well, why can't all of them? Oh, sure, I can understand if 3 or 4 player mode restricts the comps to a smaller number, but two player? Far too many games have shown that you can have a reasonable number of comps in 2 player mode (6 in Rush 2049 and Star Wars Racer, 16 in Wipeout 64, 8 in Mario Kart, etc...) to make me accept F-Zero's four (compared to 30 in single, while Rush has 6 in single and Racer has 12...), or the myriad games which don't have comps in multi. Sure, there are often technical reasons... but if they tried they could solve them as the many games for which that doesn't restrict them proves.
However, you seem to be talking about something else... about making them good. That is an issue too, of course -- take F-Zero again. Its multiplayer comps aren't exactly competent... and unlike many games you can't set a difficulty level for them. Pathetic. I mean, sure, good AI is hard to do... but don't you already have it from single player? Uhh, all you need to do is use the same guys from single player in multi... doesn't sound hard to me. its not that that makes so many racing games have idiotic 'humans are the only things on the course' stuff on the Gamecube! Its lazy programmers who don't want to bother trying to make it run well with comps, which I'm sure they could do.
26th November 2003, 9:33 PM
Well, if they took the AI from driving laps around a course and applied it to a battle mode, you'd have lots of computer players running laps around the Cookie and occasionally shooting something. At that point we'd all be laughing so hard at the true patheticness, no one would play the game again.
Sure, they could do it. But it would be hard to do. My only point was that it's incorrect to blame it on the "lazy programmers" who don't get to go home because they are working non-stop for the final 6 months before release day.
Sure, they could do it. But it would be hard to do. My only point was that it's incorrect to blame it on the "lazy programmers" who don't get to go home because they are working non-stop for the final 6 months before release day.
26th November 2003, 9:43 PM
Umm... we were talking about battle mode? I didn't think so... 
I'm talking about normal races... on that note, how about MK: DD? Does it have comps in multi, or a 3 or 4 player race mode?
Battle mode is different. That of course would require completely different AI and I can understand leaving that out if battle mode isn't a major part of your game... or if you don't have the time...
I'm talking about normal races... on that note, how about MK: DD? Does it have comps in multi, or a 3 or 4 player race mode?
Battle mode is different. That of course would require completely different AI and I can understand leaving that out if battle mode isn't a major part of your game... or if you don't have the time...
27th November 2003, 12:07 AM
LL, of course programming AI is difficult. Right now I'm making a game with a friend and he's working real hard trying to get the AI right. But EAD is not just a couple of college kids making an experimental game. They're THE BIGGEST developer on planet earth. They can handle the task of creating AI for the battle arenas! If Rare can do it, if Midway can do it, then why can't Nintendo?? I don't understand that logic. Nintendo has no excuse for this other than laziness and/or simple indifference. This has become a very big problem for Nintendo lately. They're just not willing to do as much as other developers are. Do you think F-Zero GX would have had 16:9 support, high-quality FMV, and a great story mode if EAD had made it? I seriously doubt it. EAD is still my favorite developer, but they really need to make more of an effort with certain aspects of their games.
27th November 2003, 12:26 AM
Yeah ABF, LL was talking of battle mode and only battle mode, like the rest of us actually.
Oh, to answer your question, yes. Unlike MK64, you can now have a full race with comps with 3 and 4 players as well.
Oh, to answer your question, yes. Unlike MK64, you can now have a full race with comps with 3 and 4 players as well.
27th November 2003, 5:50 PM
OB1, it's called a time limit. They can't just magically get it done simply because theya re good. It still takes time. And anticipating your next statement...
Quote:A manager went to the master programmer and showed him the requirements document for a new application. The manager asked the master: ``How long will it take to design this system if I assign five programmers to it?''
``It will take one year,'' said the master promptly.
``But we need this system immediately or even sooner! How long will it take if I assign ten programmers to it?''
The master programmer frowned. ``In that case, it will take two years.''
``And what if I assign a hundred programmers to it?''
The master programmer shrugged. ``Then the design will never be completed,'' he said.
~The Tao of Programming
27th November 2003, 6:33 PM
Haha :D! I haven't yet had the pleasure of programming something with another programmer, but I can imagine the problems inherit to that :D. I accept the truth of the Master willingly!
27th November 2003, 7:35 PM
I thought I made it clear I was talking about normal races... it should be very obvious if you read that post of mine... but my comments apply just as well if altered to battle mode too. Its just that games without many comps in multiplayer is a thing that I find really annoying... take, for instance, F-Zero GX. Great game? Yes. Really great. But the multiplay? 'Lacking' is being nice. No difficulty options. No option to have over four cars. No nothing! L-A-M-E. For instance... some of my cousins are here for Thanksgiving now. So today we got to play Gamecube. F-Zero GX is first, since F-Zero and Gauntlet Dark Legacy are my two new games... now note my cousins don't have a Cube, but they do have an N64 and both Gauntlet Legends and F-Zero X, and have played both a lot. So we play F-Zero for like half an hour... fun in the sense that the game is great and the tracks are fun. But fun in the sense that its a great multiplayer experience? Absolutely not. Without the full field that makes F-Zero F-Zero the multiplay in GX is just as stupid as it was in X... why they didn't improve it from X really mystifies me, given how bad it was in X...
And then we played Gauntlet Dark Legacy for two hours.
As for battle mode. If 3DO can do it, so can Nintendo. Oh, sure, BattleTanx isn't exactly Mario Kart, but its a game with a mode where you drive around in vehicles and shoot eachother... :) And BattleTanx: Global Assualt has a GREAT multiplayer mode. Four players, any combonation of humans and comps... if 3DO can do it, not to mentiopn better developers like Midway and Rare, why in the world not Nintendo? "Time" is a very bad excuse when lesser developers can do it...
And then we played Gauntlet Dark Legacy for two hours.
As for battle mode. If 3DO can do it, so can Nintendo. Oh, sure, BattleTanx isn't exactly Mario Kart, but its a game with a mode where you drive around in vehicles and shoot eachother... :) And BattleTanx: Global Assualt has a GREAT multiplayer mode. Four players, any combonation of humans and comps... if 3DO can do it, not to mentiopn better developers like Midway and Rare, why in the world not Nintendo? "Time" is a very bad excuse when lesser developers can do it...
27th November 2003, 8:11 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Laser Link
OB1, it's called a time limit. They can't just magically get it done simply because theya re good. It still takes time. And anticipating your next statement...
Oh I totally forgot, Nintendo simply doesn't have the time to complete their games! Right, in the past few years they were busy working on... five games! Woo! A several hundred member developer doesn't have time to add battle AI to their games but a mediocre third-party developer like Midway does! That's what you're saying, isn't it?
Seriously, I'm sick of these excuses. If Nintendo were developing dozens of games a year and had a very short amount of time to work oin MK DD, then they might have an excuse. But that's not the case! Where are all of their resources going to?? So far EAD has only released half a dozen games for the Gamecube.
27th November 2003, 8:21 PM
OB1, what Midway games have AI bots in a battle mode? I know none of the Rush games have that... but other than that, I agree.
Well, except for the part where you call Midway mediocre... :)
Well, except for the part where you call Midway mediocre... :)
27th November 2003, 8:32 PM
Aren't a lot of EAD's programmers currently working on projects with other development houses?
27th November 2003, 9:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
OB1, what Midway games have AI bots in a battle mode? I know none of the Rush games have that... but other than that, I agree.
Well, except for the part where you call Midway mediocre... :)
The DC version of Rush 2049 had bots in multiplayer battle.
27th November 2003, 10:53 PM
Really? Huh... and I thought the only differences between the N64 and DC versions were the graphics and that second obstacle course... :)
Bots in the battle mode. Cool, that'd add so much to that mode... as it is I don't play it much at all because it has no single-player mode, and if I do play Rush 2049 in multiplay generally battle mode is the least played of the three modes... I've only unlocked one of the battle tracks, if that says something. :) Bots would improve it a lot... are they any good?
Bots in the battle mode. Cool, that'd add so much to that mode... as it is I don't play it much at all because it has no single-player mode, and if I do play Rush 2049 in multiplay generally battle mode is the least played of the three modes... I've only unlocked one of the battle tracks, if that says something. :) Bots would improve it a lot... are they any good?
27th November 2003, 11:03 PM
Uh... I forgot. I'm pretty sure that game has bots. I could check, but my DC isn't hooked up and I'm lazy.
But whatever the case is, Nintendo is still lazy when it comes to certain things. DKR had bots in single-player battle mode, so why can't MK DD??
But whatever the case is, Nintendo is still lazy when it comes to certain things. DKR had bots in single-player battle mode, so why can't MK DD??
27th November 2003, 11:20 PM
I bet if you checked it you'd find no bots in battle mode. It is slightly annoying, since it hurts the mode (no bots doesn't hurt Stunt at all since that one's just so much fun to play... :) ), but given that the Stunt and Battle modes, along with a bunch of stuff in the main mode, were all added to the original arcade game just for the home versions I don't mind much... and the fact that the battle mode is very well done doesn't hurt much.
But as I said before, whether 2049 has it or not isn't the point, since there have been more than enough games that have had bots in battle mode to show that Nintendo of all people, home of so many top quality games, should have it in their own games. No question.
Anyway, as I said, if 3DO can do some fine comp AI (well somewhat easy, but that whole game is easy...) in BattleTanx, why in the world can't Nintendo? Its totally bizarre... yeah, their time is limited, but still. If they had really wanted to I'm sure they could have fit in the time, given how major a feature that would be...
But as I said before, whether 2049 has it or not isn't the point, since there have been more than enough games that have had bots in battle mode to show that Nintendo of all people, home of so many top quality games, should have it in their own games. No question.
Anyway, as I said, if 3DO can do some fine comp AI (well somewhat easy, but that whole game is easy...) in BattleTanx, why in the world can't Nintendo? Its totally bizarre... yeah, their time is limited, but still. If they had really wanted to I'm sure they could have fit in the time, given how major a feature that would be...
28th November 2003, 12:48 AM
Well I remember playing the battle mode a month ago and I wasn't playing with anyone else, so I'm pretty sure there are bots. :D
28th November 2003, 7:38 PM
Maybe you were playing against immobile comps just to rack up some kills? :D
28th November 2003, 8:59 PM
Not even Midway would put AI-less bots in their games.
28th November 2003, 9:09 PM
Sorry, wasn't clear there. I meant plugging in three other controllers and just blowing up the other three players. :)
28th November 2003, 10:36 PM
I think I'd remember doing that. :stupid:
28th November 2003, 10:59 PM
:D
Seriously, it'd be pretty cool if the DC version had bots... wonder why they weren't in the N64 one. Somewhat low framerates didn't stop them from including Track Six in 2-player races, or allowing 4-player mode in the game... :)
And if I want to get the other three battle tracks, that's just about my only option. Oh well.
Seriously, it'd be pretty cool if the DC version had bots... wonder why they weren't in the N64 one. Somewhat low framerates didn't stop them from including Track Six in 2-player races, or allowing 4-player mode in the game... :)
And if I want to get the other three battle tracks, that's just about my only option. Oh well.
29th November 2003, 10:05 PM
Wow. I knew what your response would be (they have so many people, they should be able to get it done), so I answered your response with why it wouldn't work. Then you said it anyway. Wow. Are you trying to scare me away? :D
30th November 2003, 12:16 AM
But your "point" doesn't make sense! When 3D0, Midway, and Rare can do it SO CAN NINTENDO! There is just no excuse! You said that they didn't have time and it's hard. Well programming is hard and it doesn't stop Nintendo from making games... and they had plenty of time, it's not like the rest of the game had much innovation in it! They could have at least put up semi-competent AI bots to give the players something to do... but no. Seriously, you say that they have a time limit and they couldn't fit it in. I just can't believe that. As I said, if they had wanted it to get in they would have made time somewhere in their schedule. For a feature that big, I'm sure they could have. Saying that as large a developer as Nintendo can't find the time to add bots is just absurd...
30th November 2003, 1:18 PM
Yeah seriously, your point makes no sense, LL. I don't see how Nintendo being the biggest developer in the world and making so few games = them not having enough time to finish them. Please, by all means, explain how that makes sense to you.
30th November 2003, 1:40 PM
I dunno, seems like a small feature to me, but then again I find racing against AI kinda boring anyway. To me it's only fun with humans. I believe Nintendo weighed the time and effort it would take vs the worth of the feature and just decided it wasn't big enough a feature to justify the effort. I tend to agree. Without other humans laughing it up and saying stuff in your general direction, battle mode just isn't very fun...
30th November 2003, 3:57 PM
You guys just aren't getting it. You keep saying that Nintendo is the biggest developer in the world or something, and therefore they should have every feature imaginable. It doesn't work that way. It has nothing to do with size. Having more people working on the game will not make it better or finish it faster. You can choose to believe that I might know what I'm talking about since this is what I do AND this is what other, much better and more experienced programmers also say, or you can ignore it and believe what you think is true even though it's not.
This started off because I was frustrated with ABF complaining about lazy programmers, and then I tried to explain that more programmers is not the answer. I'm not saying that Nintendo couldn't have done it, I'm saying that none of you know how to do it either so stop trying to pretend that you do. Your "solutions" are things that are covered and dismissed in the first week of any software engineering class. That's not something you would know, but when I try to explain it so you will understand you don't listen and just repeat the same nonsense. Never mind, I don't know why I bother. You are obviously right because you want to be, and it doesn't matter what anyone else says.
This started off because I was frustrated with ABF complaining about lazy programmers, and then I tried to explain that more programmers is not the answer. I'm not saying that Nintendo couldn't have done it, I'm saying that none of you know how to do it either so stop trying to pretend that you do. Your "solutions" are things that are covered and dismissed in the first week of any software engineering class. That's not something you would know, but when I try to explain it so you will understand you don't listen and just repeat the same nonsense. Never mind, I don't know why I bother. You are obviously right because you want to be, and it doesn't matter what anyone else says.
30th November 2003, 4:19 PM
Quote:I believe Nintendo weighed the time and effort it would take vs the worth of the feature and just decided it wasn't big enough a feature to justify the effort. I tend to agree.
That makes a lot more sense than "They just woke up stupid one day and coulnd't figure out how to do it."
Quote:I tend to agree. Without other humans laughing it up and saying stuff in your general direction, battle mode just isn't very fun...
Yeah, playing with actual people is a lot more fun.
30th November 2003, 4:57 PM
You know, you seem to have forgotten your history. Shame on you two. Games tend to not have all the features originally wanted in them due to the very things LL speaks of.
This has happened with many talented groups, and is still happening, and to make it clear, happens in every single game. Let's not forget the great dirth of games that had to be completely retooled because they realized they couldn't realistically intigrate what they had in mind in the time frame they had. They are great, but not gods. Choices must be made. If memory serves you, Goldeneye didn't have everything they wanted in it. They had to remove a huge number of partially done features, and didn't even start adding others. Perfect Dark is the same, if you remember modes like tag the box that were originally intended to be in there. Final Fantasy 7 is one of the more infamous examples of programmers not adding everything they wanted to. Indeed, though they never once intened to revive... a certain someone... there was a lot of little quests they had wanted to add but didn't due to time.
They could have put that in there likely. AI race battles have been made before and they likely had the skill and the know-how. However, they would have had to delay the game for a while as they did it. That's not something that could have been "thrown together" over a weekend. Yea verily, even something like putting the classic guns in multiplayer would have taken longer than the 5 minutes people assume.
These are all top notch developers, but there will always be something here or there they "could have added" or "should have added" or "didn't add because they are lazy". There just wasn't enough time for: AI bots in battle mode, classic guns in multiplayer, a quest to unfreeze Zora's domain, a quest to speak with a certain someone one last time and get some extra items, let you ride Yoshi instead of just getting a new triple jump, 3 or 4 more dungeons to sail around to as Link, and so on. Indeed, Square makes a rather nasty habit out of rereleasing games with added features in Japan all the time. Generally, good companies release games when they feel they at least have all the CORE stuff they wanted to put in there.
One last thing. The Silmarillion was never finished by JRR Tolkien because he never thought it had everything he wanted in it. He kept adding and adding to it until time ran out, and his son was the one who finally finished it (though who knows if JRR would have found it complete). There's a lesson in that. That's to buy the new "wrap it up" box! No really, it's that one can never add EVERYTHING they want to and have to stop some time, and when you work for a company, they tend to tell you when you gotta wrap it up.
Now then, PC games (and XBox live games) have a small advantage. Programmers can keep on adding stuff even after they need to release the game. Of course, they still need to make money and time spent working here is time spent not working on a brand new game, so major stuff gets charged for (expansion paks, certain content).
Now, I'm a schizo, so on the gamer side of things, I totally get where you are coming from. As a gamer, I honestly don't care WHY the game feels incomplete to me, just that I'm not satisfied. From the perspective of a player, the behind-the-scenes don't matter. The result does.
Yeah, it's a big conflict of interests there. One side of me defending the attacks from the other side... Still, that's the thing. Programmers are always trying to find better, faster, and easier ways to get the job done. New languages and such for instance. Easy does NOT mean lazy. Easy means more gets done for you the gamer. Still, while langauges are easier and faster to use than ever before, there's also a LOT more stuff to do than ever before. Today's games are far more complicated in the code than ones in the past. Better graphics mean programmers have to take advantage of the better graphics, and that doesn't happen magically. I believe one of the main reasons games today may seem so incomplete is because they are being made in roughly the same amount of time, or shorter, but are far harder to make. If us gamers are willing to wait a few more years for games, that could help a lot. Adding programmers? Well, I can't imagine that helping too much. Having enough to seperate the various parts of a game up amongst different groups is one thing. But, add too many and you can't really cut down the work between them much more. One level down from what's "healthy" and you have people working on lots of small bits of code and they end up in meetings all the time trying (and failing) to coordinate everything. Two levels down and nothing's ever even planned because the programmers keep arguing over the best way to go about the bit of code they were all assigned to. Three levels down and the universe explodes. More doesn't equal good all the time. There's too little, and that's the only thing most people are aware of, but the other end of the scale is just as bad, if not worse (at least one person alone would get work DONE). It's finding the happy medium that's the goal. I think Nintendo has that done just fine.
Don't knock LL. He is ALWAYS right, always. :D
This has happened with many talented groups, and is still happening, and to make it clear, happens in every single game. Let's not forget the great dirth of games that had to be completely retooled because they realized they couldn't realistically intigrate what they had in mind in the time frame they had. They are great, but not gods. Choices must be made. If memory serves you, Goldeneye didn't have everything they wanted in it. They had to remove a huge number of partially done features, and didn't even start adding others. Perfect Dark is the same, if you remember modes like tag the box that were originally intended to be in there. Final Fantasy 7 is one of the more infamous examples of programmers not adding everything they wanted to. Indeed, though they never once intened to revive... a certain someone... there was a lot of little quests they had wanted to add but didn't due to time.
They could have put that in there likely. AI race battles have been made before and they likely had the skill and the know-how. However, they would have had to delay the game for a while as they did it. That's not something that could have been "thrown together" over a weekend. Yea verily, even something like putting the classic guns in multiplayer would have taken longer than the 5 minutes people assume.
These are all top notch developers, but there will always be something here or there they "could have added" or "should have added" or "didn't add because they are lazy". There just wasn't enough time for: AI bots in battle mode, classic guns in multiplayer, a quest to unfreeze Zora's domain, a quest to speak with a certain someone one last time and get some extra items, let you ride Yoshi instead of just getting a new triple jump, 3 or 4 more dungeons to sail around to as Link, and so on. Indeed, Square makes a rather nasty habit out of rereleasing games with added features in Japan all the time. Generally, good companies release games when they feel they at least have all the CORE stuff they wanted to put in there.
One last thing. The Silmarillion was never finished by JRR Tolkien because he never thought it had everything he wanted in it. He kept adding and adding to it until time ran out, and his son was the one who finally finished it (though who knows if JRR would have found it complete). There's a lesson in that. That's to buy the new "wrap it up" box! No really, it's that one can never add EVERYTHING they want to and have to stop some time, and when you work for a company, they tend to tell you when you gotta wrap it up.
Now then, PC games (and XBox live games) have a small advantage. Programmers can keep on adding stuff even after they need to release the game. Of course, they still need to make money and time spent working here is time spent not working on a brand new game, so major stuff gets charged for (expansion paks, certain content).
Now, I'm a schizo, so on the gamer side of things, I totally get where you are coming from. As a gamer, I honestly don't care WHY the game feels incomplete to me, just that I'm not satisfied. From the perspective of a player, the behind-the-scenes don't matter. The result does.
Yeah, it's a big conflict of interests there. One side of me defending the attacks from the other side... Still, that's the thing. Programmers are always trying to find better, faster, and easier ways to get the job done. New languages and such for instance. Easy does NOT mean lazy. Easy means more gets done for you the gamer. Still, while langauges are easier and faster to use than ever before, there's also a LOT more stuff to do than ever before. Today's games are far more complicated in the code than ones in the past. Better graphics mean programmers have to take advantage of the better graphics, and that doesn't happen magically. I believe one of the main reasons games today may seem so incomplete is because they are being made in roughly the same amount of time, or shorter, but are far harder to make. If us gamers are willing to wait a few more years for games, that could help a lot. Adding programmers? Well, I can't imagine that helping too much. Having enough to seperate the various parts of a game up amongst different groups is one thing. But, add too many and you can't really cut down the work between them much more. One level down from what's "healthy" and you have people working on lots of small bits of code and they end up in meetings all the time trying (and failing) to coordinate everything. Two levels down and nothing's ever even planned because the programmers keep arguing over the best way to go about the bit of code they were all assigned to. Three levels down and the universe explodes. More doesn't equal good all the time. There's too little, and that's the only thing most people are aware of, but the other end of the scale is just as bad, if not worse (at least one person alone would get work DONE). It's finding the happy medium that's the goal. I think Nintendo has that done just fine.
Don't knock LL. He is ALWAYS right, always. :D
30th November 2003, 7:43 PM
Quote:You guys just aren't getting it. You keep saying that Nintendo is the biggest developer in the world or something, and therefore they should have every feature imaginable. It doesn't work that way. It has nothing to do with size. Having more people working on the game will not make it better or finish it faster. You can choose to believe that I might know what I'm talking about since this is what I do AND this is what other, much better and more experienced programmers also say, or you can ignore it and believe what you think is true even though it's not.
This started off because I was frustrated with ABF complaining about lazy programmers, and then I tried to explain that more programmers is not the answer. I'm not saying that Nintendo couldn't have done it, I'm saying that none of you know how to do it either so stop trying to pretend that you do. Your "solutions" are things that are covered and dismissed in the first week of any software engineering class. That's not something you would know, but when I try to explain it so you will understand you don't listen and just repeat the same nonsense. Never mind, I don't know why I bother. You are obviously right because you want to be, and it doesn't matter what anyone else says.
Uhh, you don't say anything in that post really... nothing that gets us anywhere, anyway.
Lets see if I can tell your main point.
-you aren't game programmers so you cannot judge how much programmers can get done for a game. Okay, so I have to be a painter to be an art critic? A musician to be able to criticize music? No! This point is irrelevant... we may not work in game development places (though I know OB1 has taken quite a few programming classes), but its not like I don't know anything about this industry... and you do not make a point. Uh, are you agreeing with DJ that you think they didn't do it because they thought it wasn't worth the effort? If so, say so. Because in this post you don't actually take a position, you just rant about stuff...
And if adding people to a team never helps how come the teams always increase as they get to crunch time and have to finish the game? But anyway,that's different... something like this would be put in earlier I'd think. Sure, they had a lot to do... but so much that adding something as basic as bots in battle mode? You don't present any case here that defends Nintendo for doing that! None! (and that's because there isn't one...)
Okay, so adding more programmers might not speed up development. Yeah, I can see that in some cases... but how does that excuse them leaving out such a huge feature? I mean, I'm sure a big team worked on Double Dash! Yes, they had a lot to do, but as I said... if they had WANTED that feature they definitely could have found the time (with or without increasing the size of the team). Are you trying to deny that they could have done it or something? I don't get you at all... it's kind of hard to respond to that in relation to adding game features because you're barely talking about it...
I'm sure Nintendo worked hard to finish DD. They just decided to not put in some of those little extra touches that add huge value to a game but seem relatively simple... like bots. Or Stunt Mode in the Rush games. :)
As for DJ's post... I wouldn't be as annoyed if Nintendo said "we tried to put in bots but just ran out of time", or "we couldn't get them good enough in time for launch". But they never even mentioned it as a possibility. That's different and shows that as OB1 said Nintendo has forgotten somewhat about the little things...
30th November 2003, 7:54 PM
LL, don't worry about it. Simply allow them their delusions I suggest.
30th November 2003, 8:34 PM
Its far from delusional to say that Nintendo should do like they used to do and always go the extra mile in making their games. Quite the opposite, in fact... OB1 is too harsh about it but in general he is right that Nintendo is slipping.
Oh, and to convince us of anything you'll actually need a decent reason why they left it out. I doubt that you'll come up with anything better than "well they didn't think it was that important"... because saying "it was too hard" is absurd given how many times this has been done before. The only sane explanation is that they didn't want it there... I mean, sure, games are tough to make and features get dropped all the time, but this is Nintendo. It isn't some average third-party developer. It is Nintendo. And we always used to be able to expect only the best from them. They just seem to be struggling in the last few years, can't think of a better way to put it... they're still one of the best, but can anyone look at their games from the last couple of years and say that they are on a quality par with the ones from before that (especially on the details and 'little extras')?
No, Nintendo just didn't care about it... they make all kinds of bizarre decisions. I guess they think that because we all have three friends who live next door we will never need such absurd things like "bots" or "online multiplay" to satisfy the 1% of their fans without such things...
It's really strange how Nintendo seems to be trying its best to get its hardcore fans go switch to other consoles.
Oh, and to convince us of anything you'll actually need a decent reason why they left it out. I doubt that you'll come up with anything better than "well they didn't think it was that important"... because saying "it was too hard" is absurd given how many times this has been done before. The only sane explanation is that they didn't want it there... I mean, sure, games are tough to make and features get dropped all the time, but this is Nintendo. It isn't some average third-party developer. It is Nintendo. And we always used to be able to expect only the best from them. They just seem to be struggling in the last few years, can't think of a better way to put it... they're still one of the best, but can anyone look at their games from the last couple of years and say that they are on a quality par with the ones from before that (especially on the details and 'little extras')?
No, Nintendo just didn't care about it... they make all kinds of bizarre decisions. I guess they think that because we all have three friends who live next door we will never need such absurd things like "bots" or "online multiplay" to satisfy the 1% of their fans without such things...
It's really strange how Nintendo seems to be trying its best to get its hardcore fans go switch to other consoles.
30th November 2003, 8:54 PM
The original Mario Kart had no bots, Mario Kart 64 had no bots, and Super Circuit had no bots. Why does Nintendo not putting bots in Double Dash convince you that Nintendo is not going the extra mile like they used to?
The fact is, Nintendo's games have never been loaded with extras. Yes there were things like the second quest in Zelda, but stuff like that was a heck of a lot easier to do than designing a sophisticated AI for bots.
The fact is, Nintendo's games have never been loaded with extras. Yes there were things like the second quest in Zelda, but stuff like that was a heck of a lot easier to do than designing a sophisticated AI for bots.
30th November 2003, 10:11 PM
Nintendo made the first big push for easy 4-player console games with the N64... and they push the 4-player modes and connectivity multiplayer stuff all the time. So why not understand that when you don't have friends around you want to play that mode too? Its such a simple step...
And true, Mario Kart never had bots, but MK64 was a while back and at that point I can excuse them... MK64 added a lot of stuff to the game. But in '03? With a game that, unlike MK64, doesn't change the formula at all? No, I can't...
And as for extras in Nintendo games, what do you mean? It seems to me like they used to have the best quality games in every way, but recently they've degraded on some issues... they're still one of the best developers out there, but aren't as good as before.
And Nintendo has definitely dropped some of the things that attracted the hardcore Nintendo fans... look at the distinct lack of difficulty and the missing dungeons in TWW as the prime example, or SMS's lack of innovation and variety, etc... as OB1 said, a lot of the games on the Cube which have really gone the extra mile on some respects have been made by third parties... though I have to question you using F-Zero GX as an example. Sega did a pitiful job of improving the multiplay... I know I said this before, but it was just so obvious in X that it stunk that I am amazed that Sega didn't see that and come up with a way to do more than 4 cars in multi.
And true, Mario Kart never had bots, but MK64 was a while back and at that point I can excuse them... MK64 added a lot of stuff to the game. But in '03? With a game that, unlike MK64, doesn't change the formula at all? No, I can't...
And as for extras in Nintendo games, what do you mean? It seems to me like they used to have the best quality games in every way, but recently they've degraded on some issues... they're still one of the best developers out there, but aren't as good as before.
And Nintendo has definitely dropped some of the things that attracted the hardcore Nintendo fans... look at the distinct lack of difficulty and the missing dungeons in TWW as the prime example, or SMS's lack of innovation and variety, etc... as OB1 said, a lot of the games on the Cube which have really gone the extra mile on some respects have been made by third parties... though I have to question you using F-Zero GX as an example. Sega did a pitiful job of improving the multiplay... I know I said this before, but it was just so obvious in X that it stunk that I am amazed that Sega didn't see that and come up with a way to do more than 4 cars in multi.
30th November 2003, 10:35 PM
You say it would be a simple step to add bots, but as LL pointed out it just isn't that easy. The difficulty involved in making bots for a battle racing game vs. the number of people who would actually use this mode probably just didn't pay off for Nintendo if they thought of it at all.
I know this was discussed earlier, but I should be working on homework right now so I don't have the time to read a few pages pages, but how many battle racing games have had semi-decent bots? With a game like Double Dash that has a huge number of character/cart/weapon combinations I can't imagine to think of what a headache it would be to design even a mediocre battle mode AI.
I do agree, though, that there are some areas where Nintendo has lessened in quality. I really wish Wind Waker would have had a difficulty mode. One in which enemies did more damage and Link did less is all I wanted, and I know for sure that wouldn't have been too difficult as opposed to a battle mode AI for Double Dash. I just think that in this instance I don't fault Nintendo for not including something because a battle mode AI just wouldn't have been worth the effort.
I know this was discussed earlier, but I should be working on homework right now so I don't have the time to read a few pages pages, but how many battle racing games have had semi-decent bots? With a game like Double Dash that has a huge number of character/cart/weapon combinations I can't imagine to think of what a headache it would be to design even a mediocre battle mode AI.
I do agree, though, that there are some areas where Nintendo has lessened in quality. I really wish Wind Waker would have had a difficulty mode. One in which enemies did more damage and Link did less is all I wanted, and I know for sure that wouldn't have been too difficult as opposed to a battle mode AI for Double Dash. I just think that in this instance I don't fault Nintendo for not including something because a battle mode AI just wouldn't have been worth the effort.