Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spore-Inspired Action RPG Darkspore Announced

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the say-what-now dept.

PC Games (Games) 86

Today Electronic Arts announced Darkspore, an action RPG in development from Maxis that is inspired by Spore's creature creator technology. The game is due to launch in February 2011, and a teaser is available on the official website. A more descriptive video is available from EA's live demo (start at 8:25). Quoting Joystiq: "...Darkspore will let up to three players traverse 'several' planets cooperatively, and while there will be PvP in the finished product, Maxis isn't providing details just yet. The basics will be the same whether going in solo or as a team: You'll be able to choose from a number (again, no specifics yet) of pre-created melee, ranged and support creatures that can have their stats and abilities augmented by equipment. ... When choosing to beam down from your starship to a planet, you will see a lineup of enemy types that you'll encounter. This gives you and your friends enough information to decide which three characters from your collection you'll want to deploy. The trio can then be switched between on the fly, albeit with a brief cool-down period afterward. The idea is to use the characters' various abilities strategically against what the Left 4 Dead-inspired 'AI director' decides to toss your way."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's illogical captain (4, Funny)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 4 years ago | (#32974770)

If it really takes after Spore, galaxy upon galaxy, planets filled with walking cockmonsters..

I got yer PvP right here buddy...

For those who modded informative... (0)

BForrester (946915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32976608)

"P" doesn't stand for player.

Use your imagination, and then mod as "funny."

One line summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32979740)

Darkspore is like Diablo III, only not quite as good.

Make Sim City 5 Already! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32974790)

Maxis please for the love of everything good in gaming make Simcity 5.

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32974900)

With the craptasticy SC4 I'm not sure I'd want to see it come to the light of day.

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975204)

What didn't you like about SC4? The transportation systems, and that you could click on a building and see all the commuter routes, were awesome. It seemed like a worthy successor to SC2000 to me.

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32976192)

The city area was far too small, even with the neigbouring cities, and laying highways was horrible.

Apart from that, I wish they'd make a more detailed economical simulation. For example, if the industrial zone has a car factory, it needs to import steel, right? And that should prompt someone to make a steel mill to manufacture it in the city, undercutting imports by price, helping the factory make more profits, and generating tax revenue. Similarly, a burger place needs to get raw materials from somewhere, such as an agricultural farm.

Modern machines have a huge amount of power and memory, so make a modern SimCity which uses it to make a detailed simulation. Or simply go all the way and make it a micro-nation simulation instead.

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32986442)

I agree that the area was too small -- I'd really like to have several cities with full transportation/economy simulation on a single map. Your ideas on a more detailed economy sound a bit like Transport Tycoon (and related games) -- I guess SimCity could work with a similar model, even though the player influence is only indirect.

Modern machines are fast, but SC4s simulation engine -- the transportation engine in particular -- can still slow down a fast computer down to a crawl. Too bad SimCity 4 isn't multithreaded...

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32976208)

What I didn't like about SC4 was the level of micromanagement it required. In SC2K you could actually walk away for an hour and you'd still have a decent city when you came back. In SC4 however, the whole economy would tank if you forgot to pause it while you were out taking a leak. Of course, making a custom building that provides enough power for every town on the grid and has a ridiculously negative pollution level certainly makes things easier!

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32978978)

I liked that! SC2000 just stopped feeling like a challenge. If I can walk away from a game for an hour and it be fine when I get back, what would have been the point of me sitting in front of it?

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32986462)

It really wasn't that bad. The only thing that really required micromanagement was the funding of individual schools and hospitals. That really was handled poorly; both should have defaulted to auto-adjusted funding according to the number of pupils/patients, with some kind of manual setting in cases where you do want to override. The economy was pretty stable if you build the city in a sustainable way... Of course if e.g. pollution is continually rising, you can't expect things to go smoothly while running unattended.

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32980330)

Really I couldn't figure it out. I enjoy sc, sc2, sc3, but sc4 for lack of a better word always rubbed me the wrong way and I've tried several times to replay it over the last few years.

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (2, Informative)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975288)

Not sure what you don't like about SC4, but its reception was quite positive. It certainly improved on SC3k in many ways. Of course it's difficult to repeat the jump from the original SimCity to SimCity 2000. SimCity 2000 was just stunning at the time (for a 12 year old, at least).
Anyway, I really want to see a SimCity 5 with an improved transportation model (the heart of a city sim), a better representation of regions; ideally with modding capabilties up there with Civ4. As far as I understand it, SC4 wasn't very easy to mod apart from cosmetic changes, but the community has still come up with an incredible amount of results for the transportation engine among other things.

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (2, Insightful)

Zedrick (764028) | more than 4 years ago | (#32974984)

What for? Sim City 2000 is perfect, they should come up with new ideas instead of trying to remake games that can't be improved anyway.

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (2, Interesting)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975264)

SC2000 was a great game, probably the best (that or Civ2) , but of course it can be improved!

  - Not being able to build on hills always seemed silly, and ruined the looks of many cities.
  - Commercial buildings were too short, you never got the feeling of skyscrapers popping up, that was a shame.
  - The rail network would have been more fun if you could put different sized stations in, and trains couldn't turn at right angles
  - The maps were too small, limiting gameplay (one you go good, you'd generally cover the map pretty quickly)
  - The game got easier as you went along, rather than throwing up new challenges (SC4 improved this somewhat as transportation became a real challenge)

I'd like to see a game like Sim City get regular releases, refining it's gameplay. It doesn't need fancy 3D graphics, in fact that make it hard to play, attractive 2D is fine. But give us real depth and flexibility, and a challenge even once the city is making money.

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975296)

There are so many ways to improve SC2k (and SC4), it's not even funny. And I'm talking about raw gameplay here, not graphics. Whether it's a good business idea -- Maxis feels that SC4 is already too complex -- is another matter.

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32978200)

The problem with the SimCity games (haven't played to latest versions, so maybe this has changed) was always that a city completely lacked a sense of *history*. It took me right out of the game. A building would be a skyscraper one minute, a small shop the next minute, and the same skyscraper again a minute after that. In the real world, buildings decay and are sometimes torn down, but a given neighborhood maintains *much* more consistency and history than any "city" in SimCity (where a lot can house several completely different buildings over the course or just a year or two).

Re:Make Sim City 5 Already! (1)

mobets (101759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32979536)

This was improved upon. In SC4 if a building became too big for the current demand, it would be replaced with a half broken version of itself. If there was a large surge in demand in that area, it might upgrade itself, but you usually had to bulldoze it yourself.

As good as Spore? (3, Insightful)

gravos (912628) | more than 4 years ago | (#32974852)

Wow, I hope this will be as good as Spore!

Oops, just kidding.

Re:As good as Spore? (4, Funny)

lxs (131946) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975076)

Now you can do more than make penis-creatures. You can attack them too.

Re:As good as Spore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32975156)

So it's a cockfighting game?

Re:As good as Spore? (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32976210)

Or make a walking vagina, attack it with a penis-creature, and post an animated gif to various imageboards.

Coming to think of it, I suspect that at least some tabloids will do just this: "Maxis releases rape simulator!"

Re:As good as Spore? (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975150)

Spore was pretty amazing in what it attempted and to a degree what it accomplished. For a very creatively restrictive company like EA (who much rather churn out formulaic sequels from existing franchises) it was in some ways pretty ground breaking. What amazed me most about the game is it had my girlfriend and probably countless other casual gamers playing a real time strategy and later a basic space trader. Proving that if the marketing and presentation are done right, you might be able to break casual players into more hardcore game themes.

Re:As good as Spore? (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975852)

They are still creatively restrictive. Unless you happen to be Will Wright. Who else would try to hype up a game by putting Todd McFarlane, R.A. Salvatore, and Ken Rolston on the team? My first thought was "seriously? Todd McFarlane?"

Re:As good as Spore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32975326)

Pretty much this.
I want the 2005 Spore back, the one now is too dumbed down. I think even kids would hate it if it wasn't for the bright color and silly sounds on everything.
Not only that, they just thought they could let things be with very little thoughts for expansion outside of the Galactic Adventures.

The modding community has done so much for Spore. Last i checked, there were several whole new stages being built, but the modding site i read it on died fairly recently when i tried to check up on the projects. Hey, that's what happens when admins tend to be pricks and host everything on their site and expect a free site to be able to stand on its own. Apparently it is hard to upload files to file hosting sites...

Not an RPG (3, Informative)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32974870)

While the PC-xbox-what have you market may have hijacked the term "role playing game" for its own profit, it doesn't represent any actual role playing, which is where you sit around a table with your friends and pretend to be a someone or something else to whatever depth you feel comfortable. And until you have near reality physics engines and near human AI, as well as full facial/vocal/auditory interaction, you won't get that (really really fun) experience either.

Re:Not an RPG (3, Insightful)

azaris (699901) | more than 4 years ago | (#32974896)

RPG nowadays means: Follow pre-scripted whiny one-dimensional stereotypes run around cliched worlds fulfilling repetitive fetch quests while having a tenuous chance at actually changing the course of events at one or two specific points in the plot.

Re:Not an RPG (2, Funny)

Japher (887294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32974914)

So basically D&D, but in your own basement instead of your friends?

Re:Not an RPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32979564)

Your assuming the whiner in question, who apparently does not like today's RPG, has friends and its E's basement not E's mom's basement.

Re:Not an RPG (2, Insightful)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32974916)

RPG erroneously seems to be defined as "upgradeable stats" whether it is by leveling up or equipping better items. I'm also curious how modelling this game after the space era of Spore with precreated uneditable creatures is inspired from the creature creator...

Re:Not an RPG (2, Insightful)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975094)

RPG erroneously seems to be defined as "upgradeable stats" whether it is by leveling up or equipping better items.

Thats not a bad description of the original D&D actually, which was itself an offshoot of tabletop wargaming. Now you can get that sort of experience from a computer game, since its mostly mechanics, what you are capable of doing is quite limited within the confines of the game. More recent tabletop RPGs however are a completely different level of enjoyment, not even for the amateur theatrics but for the endless possibilities they offer. Like a particular book or movie? Spend a few hours setting up a world based on it and off you go with your favourite game system. Want to instead of bribing or fighting the guard at the gate, go into the woods and cast spells to get woodland animals to cause a distraction? No problem. Infinite adaptability, ad hoc creativity, limited only by your imagination, as different from computer RPGs as a computer game is from airsoft or paintball.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32976426)

Good call. The "role playing" element of D&D (basic!) was virtually non-existent. We're talking about a game with so little choice that it had "elf" and "dwarf" as character classes.

Re:Not an RPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32982804)

There's a thing called "personality", but, judging from your posts here, you're not too familiar with the concept.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

pandaman9000 (520981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983402)

Those were races. D&D Basic had the four basic classes. The role playing aspect was up to the DM and the players. If the DM wanted it to be super basic, then there would be few options, and the only real workable combat would be using the weapon in hand. A more creative group can use coercion, negotiation, bluffing,and if in combat, their surroundings to complete any encounter.

The scope of what can be done in the game goes way beyond that, but I will stop there.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 4 years ago | (#32985892)

Yes, and that was almost 35 years ago. The game's changed a bit since then.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975792)

The problem is that while most RPGs have "upgradeable stats", and they're indeed almost required to have an RPG, it does not go the other way around. Just because something has "upgradeable stats" doesn't make it a RPG. The same way having wheels doesn't make something a car, even though all cars have wheels.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32976536)

RPG erroneously seems to be defined as "upgradeable stats" whether it is by leveling up or equipping better items. I'm also curious how modelling this game after the space era of Spore with precreated uneditable creatures is inspired from the creature creator...

Yeah, no kidding! I thought the actual creature phase with the running around and combat was really neat. I was hoping for something bigger with similar ideas. A 3d Evo [wikipedia.org] was really what I had hoped for, and this new one doesn't seem to do that either...

Re:Not an RPG (1)

chronosan (1109639) | more than 4 years ago | (#32977714)

I really likes the Cell phase, not so much after that.

Re:Not an RPG (2, Interesting)

popo (107611) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975892)

For the most part, I agree. Although property ownership, economics models, in-game reputation, character types, race, etc. play increasing roles. Freeform exploration is also a major plus.

Morrowind imho did a great job re: character types and freeform exploration. (Oblivion less so, imho because the world was more homogenous/uniform -- but that's just me, and many would disagree).

To date, no game has come close to Baldur's Gate II in my opinion. Where choice of party-members radically altered in-game conversation, side-quests, alignment and overall gameplay.

If someone were to say -- make a 3D version of BG2, I'd probably have to cancel my life for a few months...

Re:Not an RPG (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#32976702)

Modern RPGs are still Role Play Games:
- You play the role of a Courier
- You play the role of a Pest Control Man (Dwarf/Elf/Whatever)
and if you're lucky you can even play the role of a junior hero in training tasked with dealing with all the pesky details real heroes don't worry about.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32978056)

As opposed to the more real environs of Jimmy's basement, eating the pizzeria rolls his mom made, while he reads from a piece of cardboard and several losers pretend that a glorified series of dice roles represents something meaningful in their lives? Yes, I can see where a mere videogame would pale in comparison to that awesome experience.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32979680)

Meh, tabletop wargaming goes back centuries, you can find debates on things like initiative rolls from the 19th century, and it was traditionally an upper class pastime as well. Roleplaying is one offshoot of that, beginning with D&D, which in turn spawned games like WoW, which are fine as far as they go, but it also created a new emergent phenomenon, combining ad libbing with organised game mechanics. Its a very different experience to computer gaming, not neccessarily better or worse, but different and very enjoyable. Compared to WoW, original D&D is indeed old and busted. However comparing modern TTRPGs with WoW is apples and oranges, its different kinds of fun.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975118)

RPG has always been a term that covered a multitude of sins, though. My own experience of pen & paper or tabletop gaming is relatively limited (though by no means non-existant), but I can't help but feel that you are romanticising things here (and being a bit hard on CRPGs). I have certainly participated in pen & paper games that have been nowhere near the depth or sophistication of something like Dragon Age (or even of the average Final Fantasy game in some cases). Epic free-roaming campaigns do exist, but they're the exception rather than the norm and require a hugely committed DM to make them work properly. Most DMs I've known are basically content to follow the script of whatever module/campaign book they're using with only minimal variation, and the ability of players to change the course of the plot is limited at best.

And within the sphere of CRPGs... well... there's certainly variety, and the main different streams the genre has divided into each have their own tags. The closest to the traditional pen & paper RPG is found in some of Bioware games, and in spin-offs from Bioware properties. The NWN games spring to mind here, particularly some of the third party modules. Then you have tactics RPGs (turn based strategy games with upgradable stats tagged on), JRPGs (highly linear, plot heavy) action RPGs (simple action-games with upgradable stats and gear) and so on. I don't particularly see the problem with this; when I buy a game, I know what I'm getting.

Re:Not an RPG (3, Interesting)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975120)

While the PC-xbox-what have you market may have hijacked the term "role playing game" for its own profit, it doesn't represent any actual role playing, which is where you sit around a table with your friends and pretend to be a someone or something else to whatever depth you feel comfortable. And until you have near reality physics engines and near human AI, as well as full facial/vocal/auditory interaction, you won't get that (really really fun) experience either.

Um, wow. Welcome to 20 years ago.

Seriously guys, we're limited by the technology. There's a reason CRPGs and JRPGs are what they are -- it's just not feasible to make the kind of experiences you are asking for. Consider Mass Effect or Dragon Age, games that have hundreds of thousands of pages of text. Even they feel "railroady" at times. You can't join the villain, after all, because they didn't have an extra 5 years to write, script, draw, program, etc that scenario and the 500 sub-scenarios involved.

Ask again in 20 years when the idea of having a true AI (or 100) in a computer RPG will be possible, and we're seeing "The Elder Scrolls 8" with actual open ended, emergent gameplay. When you don't have to have a human writing each line of text, then the ability to "role play" becomes a lot more feasable.

Re:Not an RPG (1, Interesting)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975134)

Seriously guys, we're limited by the technology.

The only technology I need to enjoy a better RPG experience is a pencil, paper, and some dice. Don't get me wrong, computer games are great, MMO games even better, but its a very different sort of experience.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

azaris (699901) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975480)

Seriously guys, we're limited by the technology. There's a reason CRPGs and JRPGs are what they are -- it's just not feasible to make the kind of experiences you are asking for. Consider Mass Effect or Dragon Age, games that have hundreds of thousands of pages of text. Even they feel "railroady" at times. You can't join the villain, after all, because they didn't have an extra 5 years to write, script, draw, program, etc that scenario and the 500 sub-scenarios involved.

That's the problem with modern games. They assume the player needs to be inundated with pages upon pages of mediocre fantasy guff to keep them engrossed in what is otherwise a plastic and unconvincing game world that has an economy entirely run on monster loot.

Make the game world logical if not realistic, fill it with NPCs that act like you would expect them to, and allow the PCs to act in meaningful ways with them. The players imagination can fill in the gaps and come up with a great story. Darklands might play like a multiple choice quiz at times, but it did this nearly two decades ago.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975916)

Seriously guys, we're limited by the technology. There's a reason CRPGs and JRPGs are what they are -- it's just not feasible to make the kind of experiences you are asking for. Consider Mass Effect or Dragon Age, games that have hundreds of thousands of pages of text. Even they feel "railroady" at times. You can't join the villain, after all, because they didn't have an extra 5 years to write, script, draw, program, etc that scenario and the 500 sub-scenarios involved.

Try Fallout 1&2 sometime. You can pretty much do anything you like (well, you can't join the villains, but usurp them at least).

See e.g. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_endings [wikia.com]

Re:Not an RPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32979950)

>>Seriously guys, we're limited by the technology

Not really. Were limited by greedy game manufactures who see bottom line vs a game story that never ends.

Q1: EA would make a game that you sell once but I can play forever?

A: Sorry our lawyers have advised us that we should reply no comment at this time.

Q2: Ea would you make a game that we can play for 4hrs, buy 50 "add-on" paks to "extend" the story.

A2: YES! We can sell them all for only $59.95 and you must by each one to play the next.

Re:Not an RPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32983698)

Ask again in 20 years when the idea of having a true AI (or 100) in a computer RPG will be possible

20 years? Try 2000, you'd need a holodeck for what you're talking about.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987070)

Ask again in 20 years when the idea of having a true AI (or 100) in a computer RPG will be possible

20 years? Try 2000, you'd need a holodeck for what you're talking about.

Well, first off, I tend towards believing Kurzweil as being right [wikipedia.org] (or at least close), which would put the technology closer to 20-80 years out. Is he right? Who knows? You're missing the point if you're asking that question -- the point isn't "are we going to see a singularity" but rather "are we going to be surprised by future tech when we're old and retired and think we know better?"

Secondly, the actual media/UI is irrelevant. We don't need holographics, a monitor would work just fine -- and we're far more likely to get consumer level AR/VR before any form of hardlight holographics anyway.

See, we're really reaching the real plateau where graphics cards are running out of steam -- a $50 card can still run all new games at mid/high graphics, and it's becoming prohibitively expensive to make "ultra high" graphics on a development side. *Something* has to change, either new tools for game development or a new interface. Myself, I believe we're ripe for a new interface -- VR of some sort being the likely candidate -- which will allow us to put that same graphics power back to good use. Perhaps monitors with a similar 3D system as Nintendo's 3DS or something will appear in the meantime, but that almost seems like a non-starter outside of handhelds.

But no, interface isn't the problem. The real problem we're discussing right now is the lack of AI/AGI, but even a nice procedurally generated content generation system would do what we want.

I think the ultimate middle ground that we'll start seeing in 5-15 years is Computer Augmented Scriptwriting (CAScripting) -- designers creating a not-quite-turing level pseudo-chat bot that will help them write large amounts of scenarios very quickly. Then this hypothetical future-BioWare would have a human script editing team go back and edit the scripts for flow.

By creating something like this, you could set up 50 - 100 semi-unique simulated personalities and give them semi-realistic responses to stimuli, such as the PC turning traitor or the big bad surrendering unexpectedly.

I suppose if you wanted to get in on this field early, teaching a computer how to write short fantasy novels would be your best bet. 10,000 words, or somesuch.

Re:Not an RPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32987298)

By creating something like this, you could set up 50 - 100 semi-unique simulated personalities and give them semi-realistic responses to stimuli, such as the PC turning traitor or the big bad surrendering unexpectedly.

I suppose if you wanted to get in on this field early, teaching a computer how to write short fantasy novels would be your best bet. 10,000 words, or somesuch.

You genuinely have no clue what you're talking about. The level of AI needed to write a comprehensible, original novel is so far beyond our grasp at the moment that it may as well be impossible. We don't fully understand the bare concept of intelligence, let alone are able to simulate it. So no, you won't be seeing human level AIs in 15-20 years, or even a decent simulacrum thereof, if you said that to a real AI researcher he'd laugh his ass off at you.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989070)

By creating something like this, you could set up 50 - 100 semi-unique simulated personalities and give them semi-realistic responses to stimuli, such as the PC turning traitor or the big bad surrendering unexpectedly.

I suppose if you wanted to get in on this field early, teaching a computer how to write short fantasy novels would be your best bet. 10,000 words, or somesuch.

You genuinely have no clue what you're talking about. The level of AI needed to write a comprehensible, original novel is so far beyond our grasp at the moment that it may as well be impossible. We don't fully understand the bare concept of intelligence, let alone are able to simulate it. So no, you won't be seeing human level AIs in 15-20 years, or even a decent simulacrum thereof, if you said that to a real AI researcher he'd laugh his ass off at you.

Just like how the "real researchers" laughed their ass off at the human genome project?

Again, not talking about real AI here. Just talking about procedurally generated dialog trees and the like. Glorified chat-bots in order to facilitate the writing of large swaths of text really quickly.

Re:Not an RPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989456)

Just like how the "real researchers" laughed their ass off at the human genome project?

The human genome project was easy to scale up, the data was right in front of them, it was just a question of crunching it. And we still haven't a firm grasp of the complex interactions between genetic information, far from it.

Unlike such a project, we don't have the data in front of us to create intelligence, it would be as though there was considerable debate over the existence of genes in the first place. And even if we did, you'd still need an almost perfect physics engine to be able to do whatever you wanted, pretty much down to the molecular level. I'm not saying it will never happen, it probably will, but not for scores of generations at minimum. In the meantime you and your buddies can get a similar level of enjoyment with the abovementioned paper and pencil. I wouldn't see it as competition for online games, any more than I'd see football as competition for online games.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 4 years ago | (#33043780)

Just like how the "real researchers" laughed their ass off at the human genome project?

The human genome project was easy to scale up, the data was right in front of them, it was just a question of crunching it. And we still haven't a firm grasp of the complex interactions between genetic information, far from it.

Unlike such a project, we don't have the data in front of us to create intelligence, it would be as though there was considerable debate over the existence of genes in the first place. And even if we did, you'd still need an almost perfect physics engine to be able to do whatever you wanted, pretty much down to the molecular level. I'm not saying it will never happen, it probably will, but not for scores of generations at minimum. In the meantime you and your buddies can get a similar level of enjoyment with the abovementioned paper and pencil. I wouldn't see it as competition for online games, any more than I'd see football as competition for online games.

Ah yes, but do we have the data in front of us on what creates a good story? [tvtropes.org] Because before editing, that's all this kind of thing is -- data. And data can be procedurally generated.

I'm not talking about a simulated world or whatnot. I'm specifically talking about using an algorithm to create outlines of NPC interactions in a RPG, which would later be used by a professional video game scriptwriter to flesh out scenarios.

Re:Not an RPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32987362)

I think the ultimate middle ground that we'll start seeing in 5-15 years is Computer Augmented Scriptwriting (CAScripting) -- designers creating a not-quite-turing level pseudo-chat bot that will help them write large amounts of scenarios very quickly. Then this hypothetical future-BioWare would have a human script editing team go back and edit the scripts for flow.

By creating something like this, you could set up 50 - 100 semi-unique simulated personalities and give them semi-realistic responses to stimuli, such as the PC turning traitor or the big bad surrendering unexpectedly.

I suppose if you wanted to get in on this field early, teaching a computer how to write short fantasy novels would be your best bet. 10,000 words, or somesuch.

Ah jeez, you genuinely have no clue what you are talking about. We have very little understanding of the nature of intelligence itself, to the extent that any hopes of producing anything resembling a reasonable facsimile thereof are slim, at least for the next thousand yers. If you told any real AI researcher 20 years or so, he'd laugh his ass off at you. Meanwhile, more and more people are going to be enjoying real roleplaying using what that other poster said, pencil, paper, dice, and some imagination.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987744)

I agree, Kurzweil is really jumping the gun here, but making predictions about 1000 years is a bit ridiculous too -- it's far too long a timeframe to be making predictions like that. A millennium is nearly incomprehensibly long. We just don't have any clue where we'll be in 1000 years.

If nothing else, given 1000 years we might brute-force simulate the input/output responses of individual neurons and hook them up with the same connections and feedbacks to get an artificial human-level intelligence without truly understanding why it makes intelligence, then fiddle with it until it's smarter than humans and the singularity kicks off. I recall IBM was doing something like that with a mouse brain recently.

Re:Not an RPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32987468)

sorry for the double post bloody slashdot

Re:Not an RPG (1)

smcn (87571) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975938)

Imagination is a good thing, but it doesn't replace a complete audio/visual experience. No one would ever leave their house if it did.

Re:Not an RPG (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32978002)

Yeah, well in *my* day, we had *real* swordfights. Until there is the real threat of death, you won't get that (really really *really* fun) experience either.

Re:Not an RPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32982782)

The only swordfights you've ever had were with your hirsute life partner, count cockula.

You had me at EA... (3, Informative)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32974902)

... Had me saying "I'm not buying it," that is. Sorry, but I'm not gonna put up with restrictive DRM and I'm not paying out extra for DLC. Even if this game doesn't have any of that, I'll still not buy it until EA starts making that the standard for their games. I generally avoid their games, since nothing has come out from them even remotely recently that interests me in the least bit, and while this does look cool (as did Spore) I'm playing two really good and well made online CCG's that are truly free, as in beer, and tons of fun. Give me a small company, making a small game that's just fun and nothing else and I'm satisfied.

Re:You had me at EA... (1)

Lueseiseki (1189513) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975058)

Hey calm down, if you pay attention to what EA's been doing lately, they're not as restrictive and all that as they were pegged out to be. An example is their Bad Company 2 game, which launched with SecuROM that they intended to (and did) remove two weeks after the game released. Even further than that, they're even coming out with a fully fledged expansion to that game in Vietnam. No pay for extra maps here, this is actualyl original content that wasn't stripped from the game. If you wanna bitch at a company so bad do it to Activision.

Re:You had me at EA... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32976306)

The only reason they backed down from things is the uproar [theregister.co.uk] and being pilloried [penny-arcade.com] over what they did with Spore.

Don't kid yourself. They'd like to be that restrictive- because they went there and would've stayed there if consumers hadn't have so thoroughly rejected what they pulled.

Re:You had me at EA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32980742)

Yes, they reacted to their customers. Is that a bad thing somehow?

Re:You had me at EA... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32976450)

So, it's not rape if you pull out once you've had your fun?

Re:You had me at EA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32975078)

please tell what the CCGs are, kind sir.

Re:You had me at EA... (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975450)

Elements [elementsthegame.com]
and
Urban Rivals [urban-rivals.com]

Re:You had me at EA... (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975388)

FYI, on the video, they say that you can install it on as many PCs as you want. I don't know what other DRM provisions there are though. It may be just as simple as a CD check.

Re:You had me at EA... (1)

Sarius64 (880298) | more than 4 years ago | (#32980404)

FYI, on the video, they say that you can install it on as many PCs as you want. I don't know what other DRM provisions there are though. It may be just as simple as a CD check.

I never purchased or played Spore because of the DRM. I'd rather not play a PC game than install DRM, especially one that requires network connectivity.

Re:You had me at EA... (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | more than 4 years ago | (#32977284)

Its a real shame that these small studios were gobbled up by the corporate monsters. Back in the day we had Sierra, Maxis, Blizzard, Origin, and loads of other awesomeness. Now we have....EA, Activision, Ubisoft? Here's to hoping smaller successful startup companies like S2 continue to prosper, saving us from our corporate overlords.

Re:You had me at EA... (1)

xenapan (1012909) | more than 4 years ago | (#32983900)

I know its off topic but I'm dying to get links to these CCGs you mentioned. I'm a long time MTG player that quit after spending too much. Havent found a decent CCG since I stopped.

Re:You had me at EA... (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32984436)

I linked them to another poster further down, but as an ex-MTG player, you'll want to look up Elements [elementsthegame.com] card game. Urban Rivals [urban-rivals.com] takes some getting used to, but once you get down to the nitty gritty there's a lot going on there, strategy-wise.

Sounds to me... (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975124)

Like a rather desperate attempt to repurpose the rather nice technology they developed for a rather poor game and make it saleable.

One again (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975142)

"...Darkspore will let up to three players (With the multiplayer DLC plugin) traverse 'several' planets cooperatively. More planets will be available as DLC over the life of the game..." "..You'll be able to choose from a number of pre-created melee, ranged and support creaturesthat can have their stats and abilities augmented by equipment you can buy in the EA store for 'Sporecredits' (paypal, Visa, American Express accepted)..." "...The idea is to use the characters' various abilities strategically against the dumb AI ..." " ... and EA announced a better Left 4 Dead-inspired 'AI director' will be released soon after launch, available in the EA Store for 'Sporecredits' ...." "... when asked wether Darkspore would be distinguishable from a good amateur Shareware game, EA chose not to comment "

Re:One again (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975146)

That was a FTFY of the summary. I believe the actual game won't be too far from that depiction.

9:25 (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975154)

The live Demo starts at 9:25 not 8:25. Needs to be fixed.

Can reality align with my management, please? (0, Offtopic)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#32975578)

Maxis have create a amazing toolset with Spore, that can be used to make games. But to this date, no game has ben made with the toolset. Is like having the Unreal engine, withouth any unreal game.
So, obviusly, a game must be made with the spore toolset.

But this one don't look like the savior, since looks (from here) that not enough trought has put on the idea.

Maxis still has credit on my bank, and even if this game tanks, will still have more credit. But I hope start making games again, mostly because are some of the most talented and creative people on the planet, his games create genres.

What is a videogame?, definition varies from person to person, and if you ask a nintendo representative, but lets say a videogame has to have gameplay, and let say a videogame is not a tool. A creatures editor, is not a game. A game can have a creature editor, like APB has a lot of powerfull editors, but is not the game. The game is gameplay, and what got released, was very short on that. A game like Sim Farm or Sim Ants can be released withouth much gameplay, but has simulation, and the old generation that played these games, created his own achievements. But I don't see a fit of the current generation and creative editors. It don't seems to work. Or maybe it work, but not as much as other things.

Disappointing from the get-go (1)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 4 years ago | (#32976538)

My first thought (since its based on spore) was you'd build completely custom creatures from the creature creator and then fight in a co-op game. Sounded like it had potential as players would race to create inventive designed and show them off to each other. That could be quite fun and different.

Then I read the summary and saw you would just be choosing from a handful of canned classes and some upgradable stats. While this isn't a horrible idea, its hardly a new one or really that interesting and I was immediately disappointed. Well, not that disappointed...I didn't much like the idea of buying an EA game anyway.

A jester says nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32976564)

Talk to a Jester....
a Jester says nothing....
You are attacked by a Jester.....
You are attacked by a Jester....
You are attacked by a Jester....

These were the best times in RPG gaming...

Re:A jester says nothing (1)

Emperor Shaddam IV (199709) | more than 4 years ago | (#32978612)

Ultima II, right?

Is this The Matrix or Starcraft? (3, Funny)

twoallbeefpatties (615632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32977826)

Oh my god, I've just had a disturbing philosophical question - what if we're already in an RTS? What if the gods each spawn their own planets, raise their own creatures from cellular organisms all the way up, have them spawn and research technologies, and then lead them out to attack each other? The only reason we haven't seen any aliens yet is because the gods are playing, "15 millenia no rush gl hf!"

Based on what EA did to C&C 4... (2, Insightful)

Emperor Shaddam IV (199709) | more than 4 years ago | (#32978730)

Based on what EA did to C&C 4 - basically destroying the original concept of the C&C franchise - i.e. no tiberium harvesting and base building, I can only imagine that this will also be worse than the original Spore.

EA - frankly you are the worst software company in the world because you buy great software companies and take great games written by them - and slowly destroy the games.

Re:Based on what EA did to C&C 4... (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32979790)

I can only imagine that this will also be worse than the original Spore.

Is that even possible?

Re:Based on what EA did to C&C 4... (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32979978)

You forgot about Activision. I think at this point it's a race to the bottom, and Bobby Kotick is winning.

Evolva? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32979888)

I remember a game called "Evolva" sort of like this... 3 guys you controlled with different skills.

Yeah... (1)

LobsterMobster (1158623) | more than 4 years ago | (#32996808)

Somehow, "dark" and "PvP" doesn't quite mesh with "let's dumb everything down because I'd rather your mom play it for 10 minutes than you play it for 100 hours." I'll believe it when I see it. And when I see it, I'll scoff at the $30 "part packs."
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?